September 8, 2002

The awesome destruction of New York’s twin towers, in a fraction of a minute, as a horrified world watched it on TV, has left deep scars on the American psyche. It was much more than the destruction of buildings, much more even than the death of the many human victims of that monstrous event. In the longer run its greatest impact has been on the pride and the sense of superior invulnerability of the most powerful nation on earth.

The American mind has suffered from a blow from which, even after the passage of many months, it does not show any signs of recovering. The American government as well as American ‘public opinion’, as it is shaped by their media, appear to have gone berserk. That has given a new twist to the global reality that we in Pakistan have to contend with.

Terrorism, by itself, has never before troubled the US conscience very greatly, as the tortured history of Latin America testifies. Likewise the US has given consistent support to Israel’s state terrorism against the Palestinian people — and that, in turn, has produced its own terrorist response in the indiscriminate killing of civilians by Palestinian suicide bombers. That is a response of a long oppressed and despairing people. But it is no more excusable for that reason.

Pakistani society itself is today wracked by terrorist bombings and killings.

Bush, on the other hand, now himself threatens to set international law aside and attack Iraq. That too would be international state terrorism. It cannot be justified, however despicable the dictatorial regime of Saddam Husain may be. If such an attack does materialize, it cannot fail to have profound repercussion on our entire region.

Bush’s campaign against Iraq is not driven entirely by anger and madness in response to 9/11, despite superficial appearances. Iraq has had nothing to do with that in any case. His anti-Iraq campaign is not without logic and calculation of its own. Israel’s long standing hatred of Iraq is only a part of the story. A more significant factor behind it may be that of control of oil.

Two of the ‘axes of evil’, as defined by Bush, are both major oil producers. Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world and Iran is not far behind. The Bush administration seems to be prepared to defy the almost unanimous world opinion that foresees the calamity that would ensue from such an attack, not only through the devastation that the war itself will inflict but equally by the destabilisation of the entire region.

Although the name of ‘democracy’ is invoked once again, that is clearly not what the Bush objectives are all about. Behind the trigger happy fingers of potentates of the Pentagon one can see the greedy hands of the great American oil corporations. Both Bush and Vice-President Cheney are ‘oil men’. The concerns and purposes of giant US oil corporations have come to dominate American policies as never before.

As for Pakistan, this scenario presents us with profound dilemmas. The impact on us of American policies following 9/11 has been mixed and even contradictory. In the short run Pakistan has made virtue out of cooperating with the US in Afghanistan, which has been costly for us. The US has paid a price for the campaign, which it can well afford, to promote its own long term regional interests. 9/11 was only a trigger for the US military intervention.

On reflection, it seems that the US campaign has not exclusively been a response to the angularities of the fundamentalist Taliban regime. It may well be that the US adventure in Afghanistan is embedded in its interest in Central Asian oil, for which a pipeline is projected to go south, through Afghanistan and Balochistan.

What is Pakistan to do? Even if we adopt a less dramatized view of the capabilities of the Al Qaeda network, the task of ‘mopping’ up their ‘remnants’ is not a small one. Pakistani religious fundamentalists groups that are deeply involved with them, are well entrenched in the power structure in Pakistan. We have now become victims of their terror and the despicable and mindless bombings and killings.

It is alleged that they are able to operate with impunity because sections of the state apparatus, notably the intelligence agencies, are colluding with them. The damage that they have been doing is not limited to the immediate victims of their violence. The violence, especially targeted against foreigners and Christians, not only offends morality; it is also seriously undermining our economy. Those who engage in this violence are enemies of the country and our people.

The present government’s actions against religious fundamentalists have been half-hearted and ineffective. It is a responsibility, however, that it cannot shirk indefinitely. Apart from its duty to protect law and order and sanctity of human lives, the government cannot be oblivious to the extensive damage that terrorist attacks are inflicting on our economy. These men are enemies of Pakistan. Why then is the government so slow in dealing with them. Some analysts wonder if this is not due to political ambitions of the powers that be. It is suggested that they are inhibited from acting decisively because religious fundamentalist groups are (wrongly) believed to be able to wield a powerful clout in the political arena and therefore have to be placated.

In any case, such short term and opportunist thinking runs against the long term interests of the country. The government has to act decisively sooner or later. Even if the government is prepared to ignore voices from within the country, it can hardly afford to ignore world opinion.

General Musharraf has shown himself to be a pragmatist; in other words someone who bends with the wind. Such a person is well placed to accommodate conflicting interests and values. But, for the same reason, such a person is unable to adopt a clear and consistent direction in state policy. Military regimes tend to ignore enlightened public opinion. It is when there is contention within the military power base itself that the problem of accommodating conflicting interests and social forces surfaces.

The dominant ideology in the Pakistan army has long been a legacy from British colonial rule which promoted an ideology of ‘professionalism’ among Indian officers to insulate them from the appeal of nationalist movements. That ideology entailed a belief in the moral superiority of the ‘professional’ army officer over supposedly ‘self-seeking politicians’ who, they were told, exploited the illiterate masses. That colonial ideology and its contempt for democracy still survives, as the dominant ideology of the Pakistan military officers corps.

However, when General Zia began to promote Islamic ideology within the army, a new and divisive factor was introduced in the forces. This supposedly ‘Islamic’ ideology ran counter to that of ‘professionalism’. In 1995 a military coup was attempted by Islamic ideological fanatics in the army, led by one Major-General Abbasi. They intended to dislodge the professionals, in the army leadership and ‘Islamize’ the army and the country. The coup attempt failed. (It is amazing that General Abbasi has not only been released already in a short space of time but is even holding forth on Television!).

Many ‘Islamist’ officers have remained in place. Musharraf seems to have adopted a stance of balancing between the two opposed forces in the army rather than come out clearly for the secular values that were propounded by the founder of Pakistan. This is a choice that cannot be avoided for long, if Pakistan is to resolve the contradictions that are inherent in the post-9/11 world. The present lack of decisive action against the forces of Islamic fundamentalism is tearing the country apart.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)