The twin bacilli of strategic depth and jihadism have soured our ties with our neighbours, nay with the whole international community. Our body politic should be cleansed of this disease if the president’s vision is to see the light of dayPakistan People’s Party (PPP) Information Secretary Fauzia Wahab’s reported revelation of differences between the president and the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) on the “threat perception” from India is disturbing. The India factor and overall civil-military relations have played crucial roles in determining the destiny of our benighted nation. This is evident from our history. ‘Operation Gibraltar’ in 1965 plunged the country into an all-out war with India, producing serious negative implications. Refusal by the Chief Martial Law Administrator (CMLA) in 1971 to transfer power to the elected representatives of the people led to the disintegration of Pakistan. The Kargil adventure by the then COAS caused political instability and an international furore, which ironically led to the overthrow of the democratically elected civilian government by the army. In all these cataclysmic events the India factor was paramount and the army leadership the principal decision maker. In all cases the outcome was an unmitigated disaster for Pakistan.
Did we learn any lessons from these self-inflicted wounds? Most regretfully not. In what has become the standard operating procedure of our security establishment, investigations were either not undertaken or where an enquiry commission was set up, its report kept confidential, citing national security concerns. As a consequence, the Hamoodur Rehman Commission Report was neither made public nor its recommendations implemented. As to how the top secret report surfaced nearly two decades later in the offices of an Indian magazine was never explained. To the best of my knowledge there were no adverse repercussions for Pakistan’s national security. Judging from the diagnosis of most Pakistanis of our East Pakistan debacle, it seems that the overwhelming majority of them are sublimely unaware of the report’s conclusions.
Ms Wahab has stated that it is the president’s vision to transform Pakistan’s ties with its neighbours by pursuing economic and commercial cooperation without being bogged down by security obsessions. No matter how offended an average Pakistani might be at the president’s position on the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry or the NRO or for having bunkered himself in the presidency while terrorist bombings take an increasingly high toll of innocent Pakistanis, one ought to give him credit for this vision. An important measure of the success of a country’s foreign policy lies in the nature of its ties with countries with which it shares common borders. At best Pakistan’s record is a mixed one — a tense relationship with India and mutually suspicious ones with Afghanistan and Iran. Pakistan’s relations with China have traditionally been problem-free. We do however need to be sensitive and swift in responding to Chinese concerns regarding the separatists in Xinjiang.
The twin bacilli of strategic depth and jihadism have soured our ties with our neighbours, nay with the whole international community. Our body politic should be cleansed of this disease if the president’s vision is to see the light of day. It is imperative that the civilian government not only devise a coherent policy, a sound strategy and an effective implementation mechanism, but also take overall command of the anti-insurgency operations. Presently, it appears that both policy and strategy are in the hands of the army. As for an anti-insurgency mechanism, none exists. This is the general perception and if this is correct then the president’s vision will remain a vision and nothing more. Neither will the vision have become a reality by 2013 when general elections are due nor will we be able to hold them in a terror-free environment.
Opposing viewpoints within the government are neither a novelty nor a matter of concern. They are important to the making of coherent and creative policies. That these should be voiced publicly, as in the case of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, is certainly a matter of concern. Public airing of differences among various organs of the government engender confusion among the people and transmit garbled messages to outside powers. It is important to bear in mind that in a democracy, people expect their representatives in government and parliament to deliver on policies and promises made during elections. The PPP manifesto promises enhanced economic and commercial cooperation within the South Asian regional framework. It seeks to replace the architecture of conflict in the region with an architecture of peace. At the heart of the new architecture lies a peaceful relationship with India. Therefore, while behind closed doors contrary opinions can and should be expressed, ultimately the decision of the elected head of government should prevail, in other words the will of the people. In October 1999, General Musharraf thwarted this will and violated the fundamental law of the land. This should not be allowed to happen again. The Constitution in the shape of Article 6 was meant to serve as a deterrent. It did not deter General Zia. It also did not deter General Musharraf. Had the former been made to face its wrath, the nation might have been saved the tyranny of the latter.
South Asia’s future cannot be its past. Nuclearisation and global trends dictate engagement and not estrangement. All our friends have repeatedly advised cooperation as opposed to confrontation. We have not heeded their advice in the past and paid a heavy price — disintegration and now terrorism. Its time reason and sanity prevailed over irrationality and bravado. It, however, takes two to tango. India would be well advised to eschew intransigence and its hegemonic designs and enter into a comprehensive dialogue on the basis of equality.
Comments
Post a Comment