After the speech
Anwar Ahmad
jan 14, 2002
It was neither the US reaction to September 11 nor December 13 and the Indian cue for going berserk which has confronted Pakistan with its moment of truth. These events have only accelerated the unravelling already underway thanks to the follies of a myopic and self-serving ruling elite, civil and military. The tug of war between them has bred such an animosity that both would like the other to somehow disappear.
That the more prominent politicians are in exile may seem a victory for the military, but is actually an erosion of the political process and the supremacy of law. Politicians can either be knocked out by the voters or jailed by the law. There is no third way. Thus, in the looming crisis and the dangers it poses for their uniformed nemesis, the exiles may see an opportunity to return without having to face the law.
Hence their silence; even though an unbreachable wall of political unity would be a far more effective deterrent against external aggression than the over-valued nukes. To that end, the military has preferred the second-rung politicians to reflect a national consensus. Even so, Pakistan's unpleasant experience apart, a responsible democratic government by its very nature is less susceptible to international arm-twisting than a military one.
India is an illustration of that. Its Kashmir cause, such as it is, is enshrined in the constitution which, unlike Pakistan's is sacred. Thus, despite their political differences, all parties are behind the BJP government's unrelenting push to keel Pakistan over. And, despite India having no moral or legal leg to stand on in Kashmir, there is also a media consensus behind the government's stand that the real issue is "Pak-sponsored cross-border terrorism" and not the Indian repression and denial of the UN-mandated and Indian-promised right of self-determination to the Kashmiris.
Granted that this belligerence is in sync with the post-9/11 global norm of using power to crush political problems rather than attending to the grievances. But the Indian consensus on its core interests predates the American crusade on terror. And, the Indian political leadership and the media carry greater clout around the world primarily because of their democracy and freedom. Thus, Pakistan's "principled stand" on Kashmir has more often been drowned in the criticism of its domestic mess.
In addition to being a democracy, India also has the advantage of being the bigger market and, thus, finds willing ears in the West. But even our "friends" in the Muslim world and elsewhere had not exactly rushed to our rescue during the Kargil debacle. Likewise, there has been no chorus of unequivocal support against the current US-UK-Israel-India entente.
It may be argued that the fault is not entirely ours, few Muslim governments are free agents and all Muslim causes come up against a wall of ingrained biases. But all these are known constraints and ought to have been factored into Pakistan's survival strategy. These ought also to have been the impetus for building counter-weight regional alliances and, most importantly, redoubling the effort to break the ignorance from which much of the anti-Muslim animus flows. To an extent, this could (and should) be done through a more robust and credible media policy.
The weakness on the media front was never felt more acutely than in the post-9/11 onslaught against the Muslims. As the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera TV showed, there was a crying need for a credible source to present the alternate viewpoint. But Al-Jazeera failed to open an English channel even when there was a global market for it. In contrast, the CNN has a Turkish edition and the VOA and BBC target different audience in their own languages. Despite these challenges, the unearned oil-dollars continue to go waste.
After India launched its own anti-Pakistan media blitz, the near total absence of the counter-point has agonised the Pakistanis, particularly those living abroad and dependent on the Western and Indian sources of information. Pakistan's state-controlled media have a limited reach and little credibility to convince even the domestic audience, much less carrying any international influence.
However, despite their global reach and immense manipulative power, even the modern media cannot work without a grain of truth. Thus, they can sweep aside the ravages of American policies and Israeli barbarity mainly because of their reputation for independence which flows from operating in democratic polities. That is also why the Indian media can distort the whole Kashmir picture and emerge the victim despite crushing the Kashmiris and stonewalling the central issue of self-determination.
That is where democracy, no matter how imperfect, makes a cutting difference. So also do economic and institutional strengths and internal consensus and cohesion. Pakistan's vulnerability on these critical counts had caused the worry that we may not be able to handle the dynamics unleashed by the decision to go nuclear. The absence of these inner strengths did indeed turn the nuclear assets into an expensive liability.
The precarious economic situation and the vulnerability of these "assets" pushed Pakistan into line with the US attack on Afghanistan. Yet, the "assets" could not deter India from threatening war if support for the Kashmiri resistance is not rolled back. The potential economic gains of joining the US have also been all but lost to the enforced military mobilisation. The myth of an "impregnable defence" having thus exploded in our face, attention was riveted on how President Musharraf will pull the Kashmir cause out of the fire of our follies and frailties.
He had three audiences to address - domestic, American and Indian - and a difficult balancing act to perform. In vowing to uproot the sources of obscurantist and militant Islam, he would, ironically, be restoring Pakistan's inherently moderate society torn asunder by forces unleashed by the triumphant anti-Soviet Afghan Jihad by the American CIA and Pakistan's ISI.
He also reiterated the condemnation of terrorism in all its forms, censured terrorism in the guise of the Kashmir cause, admonished pan-Islamic involvement of Muslim militants, denied them the use of Pakistani soil and vowed to punish those involved in terrorist acts like 9/11 and 12/13. He also banned the Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Tayyeba even though India has not provided evidence against them. While refusing to handover their detained leaders (or any Pakistani) to India, he undertook to try them within. For the non-Pakistanis wanted by India, the door was left tantalisingly open to "appropriate action" if they are found in Pakistan.
This is, indeed, more than enough for India to declare victory. But the initial Indo-US reaction quite predictably suggests a demand for more - "demonstrable action on the ground" - and continued military and diplomatic pressure until the violence wanes in occupied Kashmir. If the uprising is indeed indigenous, this may not happen significantly. Besides, the resistance groups have vowed to go underground. It will be bad news indeed if their anger turns on Pakistan. The resulting strife could not only tear the Pakistani society apart but also destabilise the whole region.
The key to the South Asian tinderbox now lies with India and the USA. Having laid out all the goodies before them, President Musharraf called for a peaceful dialogue to achieve the ultimate objective of self-determination for the Kashmiris. And, mindful of the time-tested dilatory ploys of India, he exhorted the world community to knock some sense into it and also monitor and investigate the state terrorism unleashed by its forces in occupied Kashmir.
This, said Indian analyst Brahma Chellany, was rubbing salt in India's wounds. Nonetheless, he saw a much "improved" Musharraf and continued Indo-US pressure until Pakistan "ends its undeclared war against India." There was, expectedly, no rush either by the US or the UN to mediate. A US State Department spokesman saw the speech as "a clear break with the violence of the past in Kashmir and Pakistani society as a whole." No quid pro quo was on offer.
While India waits for an abatement of the militancy in occupied Kashmir, Pakistani opinion and the smarting militants will be watching out for a meaningful dialogue. The test for India now is whether it wants a lasting peace in South Asia, or Pakistan's capitulation and a temporary victory with a poisoned chalice of friendship. In the latter case, Pakistan's efforts to turn its state and society around could founder on the rock of Indian insecurity. The fallout would affect India and the US as well.
The writer is a freelance columnist
aa52pak@hotmail.com