Joining hands for peace

MANY in India have been troubled over the charge publicly levelled by a senior official that Pakistan’s agencies planned the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, and over suggestions that Indian agencies should consider retaliating in like fashion against locations in Pakistan where hits against Indian targets are allegedly planned.

If New Delhi had found evidence of the ISI’s role in the destructive act in Kabul, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee should have confronted their Pakistani counterparts with it. If the evidence was confirmed, the Indian premier should have solemnly presented it to the Pakistani and Indian peoples, and to the world.

Given the power and secrecy of the subcontinent’s intelligence agencies, anything, it is true, can occur. Yet if extremist pro-Taliban groups in Afghanistan and in Pakistan’s tribal areas have on numberless occasions targeted Pakistani leaders and its security forces for supporting the US-led war on terror, the Indian embassy in Kabul would also be a natural target for them.

Apart from the fact that Indian backing for the war against terror has been unambiguous and well known, India’s role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan’s infrastructure also invites the Taliban’s hostility. Therefore assertions in New Delhi (or Kabul) that a Pakistani agency rather than one of Afghanistan’s Taliban-related extremist groups attacked the embassy have to be backed by solid evidence.

And if the ISI or sections of it are indeed in cahoots with the Taliban, it is the people of Pakistan who should worry the most and devise steps necessary to break the unholy alliance. In the struggle against the threats of extremism and terrorism, the people of Pakistan are the Indian people’s natural partners, and a key constituency for Indian leaders perturbed by the threats.

In fact the Kabul incident should trigger a much-needed partnership between the people of Pakistan and the people of India. Pakistanis should demand from Islamabad the truth about the charge that an intelligence agency was involved, and Indians should likewise ask New Delhi how its agencies quickly reached the conclusion that not pro-Taliban extremists but the ISI was responsible.

People on both sides of the India-Pakistan border (and on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border) have the right to know the facts about the embassy bombing, for their security is at stake. And if security agencies are engaged in dirty work or in disinformation, then the peoples of Pakistan and India must jointly take up the daunting yet inescapable task of putting the agencies in their place.

To take our countries back from the agencies may well be the need of the hour. Ministers are our servants, and the agencies our servants’ mazdoors. Of course servants too are always entitled to respect, and to appreciation when they do their job well. I for one refuse to endorse the assessment of some of India’s Pakistan-watchers that elected leaders will prove worse than the military in dealing with extremism. The late Bhutto’s powerfully articulated rejection of extremism is a strong legacy that is shared, as far as I can see, across the spectrum of mainline Pakistani politics, by PML and ANP leaders as by the PPP. However, for figuring out effective ways of addressing grievances and defeating extremism and terrorism these politicians may need to consult more closely with one another across party, provincial and ethnic divides, and also with military and security experts.

Perhaps intellectuals on both sides of the Pak-India border should prepare an updated manifesto for the subcontinent. Some items on such a manifesto are obvious: mutual respect, including unreserved respect for the other nation’s independence; an equally unequivocal rejection of violence, whether direct or indirect, open or concealed, for solving internal, bilateral or international disputes; a clear rejection of the clash-of-civilisations theory; a solution for Kashmir acceptable to Kashmiris and to India and Pakistan; and a commitment to minority rights in both countries.

Also critical to such a manifesto, yet not so obvious in our dazzlingly globalised world, is a commitment to search for subcontinental and regional solutions instead of looking to global powers or a superpower for interventions. The US and China are formidable countries, and both India and Pakistan have tried to build relationships with them. Given the history of India-Pakistan mistrust, such relationships have seemed attractive.

Yet geography is stronger than history. Oceans and mountains remain large impediments even in the 21st century. For years India and Pakistan have tried to involve distant powers in their dealings with each other, with poor results. It is time to put the subcontinent first. Whether we like it or not, geography mandates coexistence. We can decide to enjoy what cannot be helped and seek to profit from it.

This does not mean that Pakistan should give up on its China links, or that India should turn its back on Afghanistan or on India-US relations. What it does mean is that India-Afghanistan or India-US links should not grow at Pakistan’s expense, or Pakistan-China links at India’s cost. It also means that our peoples should be vigilant against inviting external conflicts to the soil of the subcontinent.

We should acknowledge, in both India and Pakistan, not only the divisive roles of the agencies but also the hegemonic character of our societies. The arrogance of the high-born, the high-placed and the man with the stick is known to both countries. While Pakistan may not formally accept caste hierarchies the way India continues to do (despite progressive laws and the emerging political power of the so-called lower or ‘untouchable’ castes), Pakistani society seems to tolerate armed elites and private jails.

In India and Pakistan alike, muscle-power or gun-power is celebrated in posters and movies. In real-life interactions between the citizen and the policeman or the government functionary, the citizen usually comes off second best in both countries. Correcting this equation, and honouring the listening policeman or politician rather than the macho one, has to be part of our subcontinental manifesto. If despite disasters and misgovernance our economies have grown, the credit should above all go to the subcontinent’s hard-working and enterprising people. Our countries are on the move because of what our ‘common’ people grow, create, repair or remit, and the millions of vehicles they skilfully drive on hazardous roads.

Should we be betting on the subcontinent’s civil society, on the sanity and energy of our peoples? Though not permanent, hates and fears can after all continue for long, especially when politicians feed those fears and hates instead of working on education and healthcare. Still it may be a good idea to bet on our peoples and on their willingness to become partners. Better to bet thus and lose than concede that mutual destruction is the subcontinent’s destiny.

The writer is research professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

A dysfunctional state?

ACCORDING to a survey released recently by Foreign Policy magazine and Fund for Peace, an independent research organisation based in Washington, Pakistan is among the world’s top ten most dysfunctional countries.

Even more disconcerting is to see Pakistan lined up with Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Chad, Iraq, Congo, Afghanistan, Ivory Coast and the Central African Republic, with Pakistan being the second last, that is number 9, in this order. While the reality should be seen as it is to change it for the better, is the situation here as bad as it is in Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iraq or Afghanistan as the above survey indicates?

The survey uses 12 social, economic, political and military indicators to rank 177 states in order of their vulnerability to internal violence and the decay of civil society. The only other state in the region that Pakistan is categorised with is Afghanistan. If the survey is to be believed, Pakistan ranks just two places higher than its neighbour to the west. Is that really so?

Afghanistan is a traumatised war-torn country that is finding it enormously difficult to heal its wounds. It is primarily a tribal society with tribal customs governing life for the most part in cities and rural areas alike. ‘Turbaned parliamentarians’ restrict the freedom of women MPs to express themselves. Some women MPs receive death threats from militants who even kill girls’ teachers. Conflict with the militants is widespread. Afghanistan’s opium production is out of control. Afghanistan’s poppies already produce more than 90 per cent of the world’s heroin. None of this applies to Pakistan.

However strong or weak Pakistan’s economy may be, it does not bank on the illicit drug trade. Pakistan’s legal agricultural and industrial sectors comprise almost 46 per cent of GDP. The rest is contributed by services with some of the service sectors fairly well developed. Pakistan is not a hotbed of opium production and export and does not rely on it for financing its economic activities. It borrows from international financiers and in international markets and services its debt. Afghanistan has a long way to go before it reaches the state Pakistan’s economy is in today.

Afghanistan has a long distance to traverse on other fronts too. Pakistan’s parliament is not dominated by ‘turbaned parliamentarians’. Only a fraction of MPs wear turbans. Pakistan has had a female prime minister, and now a speaker, and women’s speech is not overtly restricted. While militants do pose a threat to the country, Pakistan’s forces have been able to keep them contained in the border regions.

To lump Pakistan with Afghanistan or Somalia or Sudan or Iraq or Zimbabwe or Chad is a comparison that cannot be borne out with facts.

Pakistan has an HDI rank of 136 — higher than Sudan’s at 147, Zimbabwe’s at 151 and Chad’s at 170 (UNDP, Human Development Report 2007/08). Gender-empowerment measures in some of the top 10 ‘dysfunctional’ states are not even reported, probably as they are difficult to gauge. Pakistan’s gender-related development index is ranked higher than Sudan’s, Zimbabwe’s and Chad’s. Pakistan’s income inequality is not as bad as Zimbabwe’s and the rankings of Sudan and Chad are not even available on this score. Even the sizes of the economies are not comparable. Pakistan’s GDP exceeds $110bn whereas Sudan’s is about $28bn, Zimbabwe’s nearly $3 bn, Chad’s roughly $5.5 bn and the Central African Republic’s only $1.4bn (ibid). Why must Pakistan be compared with these tiny economies?

Probably because the Pakistani state does not conform to the western ideal — in fact even resists the concepts of the West — researchers in the West came up with the ‘conclusion’ that Pakistan is a ‘dysfunctional’ state. While not everything that comes out of the West is gospel and we may wonder about the real reasons behind such a poor rating, we must try to ascertain the grounds which we may have provided for so alarming a conclusion.

It is a fact that the rise of militancy in Pakistan is a cause for concern the world over. It should be an equally big concern for us. The militants tried to spread their influence in Swat but were forced out. They are gravitating towards the Frontier province and its capital in whose defence security forces have been mobilised. Why have things come to such a serious pass?

While there has been a political and administrative lapse on this score, socio-economic reasons also abound. There is a tendency to gloat over a GDP growth that does not distribute equitably by default. Income distribution also requires intervention in the form of asset distribution that is nowhere on the agenda. People cannot live by card schemes and vouchers.

This dole works in countries which are rich and distribute equitably, and where a very small percentage of the population — in single digits — requires government handouts. Here the percentage of the population in need of substantial state support is very large, approaching or exceeding one-third of the total. Another one-third just ekes out an existence. The disenchanted deprived ready to take extreme measures are roughly two-thirds of the population. This is the target market for those hunting for heads that may be severed for a livelihood for the rest of the family.

With food becoming costlier and general price levels rising, poverty and deprivation will increase too, expanding the size of the market targeted by militants. Under such circumstances, people cannot be sold ‘tough economic measures’. People are seeking economic solutions to their woes. The government is seeking solutions for the macro economy that are at odds with the economic interests of the people at large. With the macro and micro levels working at cross purposes, there really are no economic solutions. There are only problems that are likely to further fuel the security threat being felt in the country and by the world.

So, dysfunctional we may not be yet. But dysfunctional we are likely to become if we do not seek to function like we could and should. Seeing what is missing in the glass and what needs to be filled is better than digging our heads in the sand and losing our response capability over time through continued inaction.

Pakistan in crisis

PAKISTAN is heading towards a political meltdown. It has fallen into a state of non-governance in the face of grave threats to its security. The situation can change if the country reinvents and rediscovers itself miraculously at this eleventh hour. This article is not designed to create despondency but to give an objective assessment of what is happening within the country and outside. An ostrich-like attitude will not really help.

The fact is that Talibanisation is taking over the country rapidly due to the lack of any tangible counter-strategy from the government’s side. The religious extremists are openly challenging the government’s writ every day and personnel of the police, Frontier Constabulary, Frontier Corps and other security agencies are being killed or kidnapped by the dozens. The government appears to be clueless about how to respond to the crisis. The extremists are not considerable in number but through sheer terror tactics they are forcing more and more people into submission. The area under their control is increasing day by day and that under the government’s jurisdiction is shrinking.

The government is resorting to shadow boxing in the media. It is constantly debating whether negotiation or the use of force is the best option. Is the threat to Peshawar real or imaginary? These are actually irrelevant discussions at this point in time. While we just talk, on the other side of the border the US-led coalition forces have redeployed themselves in Afghanistan.

They are massed across the Durand Line facing Pakistan. USS Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier, has moved closer to our shores. Scores of foreign journalists are swarming all over Peshawar as they probably expect some military action in the near future. The rhetoric in Washington against Pakistan is increasing by the day. The statements from Afghanistan are assuming threatening proportions. Pakistan appears to be on a collision course and the die appears to be heavily loaded against it.

Are our leaders aware of the dangers that lurk around us? Do they have plans to deal with the situation? Let us hope they do but the people are not convinced.

The problems are enormous but not insurmountable. This is the time for the elected leadership to rise to the occasion and mobilise the people behind it. There is need for a debate in parliament with all the political parties participating irrespective of their affiliations.

All the agreements Pakistan, as a front-line state, has reached with the US in this war on terror must be brought into the open and debated. Only those commitments which are in the best interest of Pakistan should be retained while the remaining need to be scrapped with the contempt that they deserve. The policy thus worked out for dealing with internal strife and external threats should be implemented by all the agencies of the state including the army and the ISI.

Anyone failing to do so must be dealt with in accordance with the law of the land. If a robust policy is articulated at that level, the challenge can be met with the resources available. Even if we are in the midst of an international conspiracy, as many believe, we cannot deny that the stated aim of the US in the region is to fight its war on terror. Yet some people strongly feel that the Americans have a hidden agenda that is directed against Pakistan. US military maps do not show countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan but a Eurasian landmass with air bases and arcs of coverage. The US would like to stay in this region because of its proximity to Russia which could become a superpower if it reorders its economy. China, which also borders this region, is another superpower in the making.

The US also has an interest in Iran. Pakistan is the only nuclear state in the Islamic world and it is felt that the centre of gravity of the war on terror in Afghanistan is being pushed towards Pakistan with a purpose and under a plan. After all the US is the senior-most and most powerful member of the tripartite commission. Why can’t it coordinate with the other two members on vital issues?

Afghanistan is an occupied country for all practical purposes and the statements by President Hamid Karzai should not be taken lightly because he may be speaking in his master’s voice. The blast outside the Indian embassy in Kabul cannot be attributed to the ISI so easily because the time selected is most inopportune from Pakistan’s point of view. It appears, according to some circles, that some big game is being orchestrated from somewhere and that the target is Pakistan.

Will our leadership rise and measure up to the occasion? If it does, the nation will not fail its leaders.

The writer, a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army, is a former secretary home and tribal affairs, NWFP and secretary Fata.

mahmoodshah@mahmoodshah.com