The Recent media reports on border violations and unprovoked firing by the Pakistani army has to be examined from a much larger perspective of Pakistani army’s calibrated provocations to India. To start with, one must ask the question why does the Pakistani army keeps upping the Anti-India behavior along the international borders? Why do Pakistani politicians like Bilawal Bhutto keep rising ‘the Kashmiri pitch’ from time to time? What explains Mr. Pervez Musharraf’s anti-India rhetoric? Are these merely political statements with no substance or is there something deeper and sinister in the offing? Answering these questions requires an understanding of the fault lines, the multiple power centers and the oligarchy which runs the state of Pakistan. It also requires us to gain insights into insecurities of a periphery state and which is motivated more by ideology and less by pragmatism or rational behavior.
Understanding the Geo-Strategic Curse on Pakistan
The General and accepted narrative on India-Pakistan partition is that the two nations were partitioned by the British from the Indian subcontinent because Hindus and Muslims could not reconcile their differences and Hindu-Muslim riots continued unabated under the leadership of Muslim league. We are told that Jinnah, the leader of Muslims wanted a separate nation of Pakistan ‘to protect and preserve the future of Islam’ and where the Muslims would be provided with ample physical security and safety from hegemony of Hindus who constituted the majority of population in India. This is the accepted text book story of India’s partition and creation of Pakistan.
However, Narendra Singh Sarila in his book “The Shadow of the Great Game: The Untold Story of India’s Partition” presents an alternate account of India’s partition. He claims that Britishers during the 40s were looking to create a buffer zone in the Afghanistan-Pakistan borders ‘to prevent the expanse of the Russian Bear’ ie to halt the rising influence of erstwhile USSR whose powers reached its zenith and diktats ran as far as Afghanistan. Since the western powers during the cold wars wanted to contain rising power of USSR and to prevent it from accessing warm water ports in south Asia thereby prevent it from accessing the oil routes. They wanted to leave a bufferzone in the area, a zone which would be preferably under the control of the western powers.
Further, the Britishers feared about the USSR gaining control of the oil wells of the Middle East – the wells of power in 40s. Given Nehru’s idealism in foreign policy, his socialist slant towards USSR and his policy of Non-Alignment with any global powers including US and UK, it was unlikely that he would play the British game in the cold war to prevent rise of the USSR power and contain its influence in AF-PAK region. Once the British leaders realized that the Indian nationalists would not join them to play the Great Game against the Soviet Union, they settled for those willing to do so. In the process, they did not hesitate to use Islam as a political tool to fulfil their objectives. Therefore the author claims that they were more than amenable to the idea of partition where Pakistan a strong and permanent ally of the west could be created in the regions of North western Frontier Province between Afghanistan and India thereby maintaining strategic interests of the west in the region.
The Game of Balance of Power
The Geo strategic curse on Pakistan did not end there. The US administration led by Nixon-Kissinger was interested in Pakistan in 70s and 80s for two reasons. One, the US wanted to use Pakistan’s borders to supply arms and provide covert weapon training to help Afghani Mujahedeen who were fighting the soviet war. Pakistan, the permanent ally was to be used as a proxy to supply to enable the Afghani Talibans to win their battle for homeland. The US interest, of-course, was containing USSR and to win the cold war.
Two, the Pakistan was to be used as a bulwark against India who was siding with the USSR and would also enable ‘opening up’ of Communist China for Business which would bring benefits to US Businesses houses. Today the same geo-strategic curse is being played out in different form. Pakistan lends itself to be used as permanent ally as long as it gets foreign aid. It is permanent ally of the US in its war against terror and also a permanent ally of China to enable it to have strategic control over Indian Borders. The US provides billions of dollars to Pakistan to ensure that its ally remains a permanent ally which allows the US to use the sea ports and airports for various strategic reasons.
Large Foreign Aid causes states to underperform
Given the varied strategic interests of many permanent allies and global powers, which were at times contradictory and at times deeply intrusive in domestic politics of Pakistan, Pakistan failed to create its own democratic institutions and failed to invest in independent institutions which would create a strong civil administration or a democracy. It is in short as Foreign policy Magazine calls it “A Failed State”. Its constant dependence on foreign aid, has led to the state becoming complacent in its political or economic affairs.
Understanding Pakistani Army, the multiple power centers in Pakistan and the Insecurities of a Periphery State
The First thing to understand about the Pakistani army is that, the Army of Pakistan today is not controlled by the state. In other words, the civil administration of Mr Nawaz Shariff exercises as much control over the Pakistani Army as the president of India Mr Pranab Mukherjee has over the house of the Indian Parliament. It plays a nominal role with no real control and subserviently accepts the diktats or recommendations of the army chief.
But how did the Army come to become so powerful in a way that it has veto power over its own government all matters connected national security. To answer this question we must go back to December of 1971. In December of 1971, the Supreme Court of Pakistan on the request of President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto set up what was called the Hamoodur Rahman Commission which went into the reasons for causes of Pakistani army’s defeat in the 1971 Indo-Pakistan winter war which led to Pakistan losing half its territory and resulted in creation of Bangladesh. The defeat was arguably the worst defeat the nation had ever faced in its history where 93000 Pakistani soldiers surrendered after India entered the war at insistence of Mrs Gandhi. Mrs Gandhi’s interest of course was to prevent large scale humanitarian crisis on our eastern borders. While the Commission lay the whole blame for defeat on the shoulders of the Army and political aspirations and opportunism of Army officers, Pakistan also realized that political bickering and lust for office by politicians of West Pakistan had led to the crisis in the first place.
This bickering cannot be afforded again. Pakistan now had a choice, its state had already been split into half. It would either modernize its army to prevent such recurrences or disappear into oblivion. Basically, the army was facing its moment of introspection and the state had been plagued by the deep insecurities of a periphery state. The Insecurity which is faced by state in its moment of existential crisis.
The Desire for Strong National Army led to army officers gaining large public support in Pakistan and came to be seen as patriots and protectors as against political class which was opportunists and power hungry. Basically the state and its citizenry had lost faith in its own political class. The State simply could not afford another Bangladesh and the citizenry craved for doing a Bangladesh on India for avenging what it calls its unnecessary intervention in what was its domestic affair in East Pakistan.
The Army with a State
Given the Army’s growing influence and large investments and judicious foreign aid by global powers, the army moved from strength to strength to arm itself to teeth and even became a nuclear power. In her book Military Inc, the pakistani author Ayesha Siddiqa shows how the military has gradually gained control of Pakistan’s political, social, and economic resources of the state. This power has transformed Pakistani society, where the armed forces have become an independent class.
The Pakistani Army officers control vast territories of land in the country and own and control corporations like Shaheen Group, Baharia Group and Fauzi foundation which has business interest to a tune of billions of dollars. The military is entrenched in the corporate sector and controls the country’s largest companies and large tracts of real estate. The Pakistan’s companies and its main assets are in the hands of a tiny minority of senior army officials. The assets of the army officers who run the largest companies in Pakistan exceed $20 billion. In other words, the army is politically, economically and socially an independent class which comprises the largest power centre in Pakistan.
This explains why we see border firings when Pakistani ministers are in peace talks with India in sharm al sheikh or why Pakistan first agrees to send director general of ISI after 26/11 attacks but later retracts or why the state has not been able to act against perpetrators of the 26/11 attack. Simply, put the civilian administration’s diktat’s end where the domain of the army begins.
Why Unprovoked Border Firings and Provocations?
In the book the ‘The Warrrior State’ by TV Paul, the researcher points out that the Pakistani Army is motivated more by ideology and less by Pragmatism or reason. Its officers crave to do a Bangladesh on India and are deeply patriotic. Pakistani army sees Kashmir as the last bastion where Bangladesh can be avenged. The army employs non-state actors under its security and even started three wars with India over Kashmir in 1947, 1965, and 1999 but failed to win any of them. Yet, it has successfully sustained a proxy war in Kashmir since 1989 using Islamist militants, some of whom have now turned their guns against the Pakistani state. Researcher Dr Christine Fair in her book “In Fighting to the End” after analyzing decades’ worth of the army’s own defense publications concludes that “from the army’s distorted view of history, it is victorious as long as it can resist India’s purported drive for regional hegemony as well as the territorial status quo. Simply put, acquiescence means defeat.”
In other words attacking India or provoking India into a war is in itself a victory because the status-quo is seen as an abysmal failure in the Pakistani Army. Researcher Dr Christine warns that the Pakistani Army will be “Fighting to the End” just as Hitler’s Germany did and would not surrender at any cost like the one in 1971 Bangladesh. Ideology and Honour today is far more important than the lives of Pakistani citizens or casualties as the army is not controlled by a representative body of the people like a legislature or a parliament.
The Researches further warns because the army is unlikely to abandon these preferences, the world must prepare for an ever more dangerous future Pakistan and a dangerous and autonomous Pakistani Army which unfettered by democratic leadership or diktats of civilian government could wreak havoc in pursuit of its own ideology and in pursuit of revenge.
So How Should India Respond?
Firstly India must understand that the Pakistani Army is not an Institution controlled by the State, it would be unfair to target civilian outposts in minor skirmishes across the border as civilians and the local government across the border has as little control over their army as we have over theirs.
Since Pakistani Army knows that the global powers would not allow two nuclear armed nations to enter into a war and India has ‘a no-first use policy’, the Pakistani army would try and take tactical advantage of this situation by entering into minor skirmishes and short firings and make a hasty retreat. The policy is basically ‘hit and run’ to make some quick gains and quick killings.
India can avoid this situation. India being a democracy and a responsible power cannot be expected to deal in the same manner and in the same language as an organ of the failed state does. Simply put India should not focus on Tit for tat. If it does so, it would be playing into the hands of an overzealous ideologue filled army which wants an all-out war with India.
India’s response must be cohesive, calibrated and must be to focus on its own security interest and to ensure peace in the region and to protect lives of its own citizens (especially those near the borders) and avoid collateral damage. It is not suggested that the Indian army must not fire back when its posts are attacked but India must focus on other solutions. India must deploy spy satellites and watch towers on the International border and increase border intelligence to incapacitate Pakistani army’s ability to attack and identify key areas where attacks are coming from. This data could also be submitted to the UN which adds credibility of Indian Army’s calibrated response. It must prevent the situation from going out of control and prevent escalation of aggression into a war. An all-out war may possibly ensure that the failed state disappears from the map but the process would be excruciatingly painful for people of the sub-continent.
What Binds Pakistan Today?
The only factor that Binds Pakistan with its divisive group of Pashtuns, Punjabis and sindhis is the hatred for Indian state. Religion as a binding factor of nation state was decisively defeated when Bangladesh was created. Language is not the binding force for Pakistan as Pashto, Punjabi, Baluchi and Urdu are hardly discernible to one another. Further the historical Shia-Sunni conflict in Pakistani community and the hegemony of sunni wahhabi Islam over other Islamic practices leaves a lot to be desired to call Pakistan a cohesive and peaceful society. Leave alone the fate of Hindus and Christians who suffer religious persecutions in Pakistan even Muslims are not spared there consider for example an estimated 2.3% of the population are Ahmadi Muslims, who are officially considered non-Muslims by virtue of a 1974 constitutional amendment and are treated as pariahs in the state.
Therefore the divisive self-imploding society of Pakistan needs a binding glue which can be used by politicians for their political gains and to make people rally behind them and consolidate their vote banks using an ecumenical solution.
The answer comes from the Anti-India rhetoric and the Kashmir rhetoric which drives passions in their populace. It appears young Bilawal Bhutto has learnt his ropes very quickly when he started the Kashmiri Pitch recently.
No comments:
Post a Comment