|
There
is an old saying from medieval times, "Those who live by the
sword, die by the sword." Such old rustic wisdom carries a valuable
synthesis of experience. The essence of this proverb applies to individuals
as to nations. Here, sword symbolises an irrational or fanatical resort
to violence and aggression as a means to achieve ends. History is
a graveyard full of men and kingdoms that sought self-actualisation
through aggression and eventually perished by it. Nazi Germany, led
by Hitler is a classical example; Napoleon and Mussolini are too.
In modern times, Taliban and Saddam Hussain exemplify the phenomenon.
Many a gangster and mercenaries share the same fate, although for
baser reasons.
Fanaticism fails in the end for two reasons: One, it is like a drug
that needs increasing doses to have the same effect and there a limit
to which fanatical stimulation can rise. It begins to loose its potency
and implodes in the end with disillusionment. Second, there is a fatigue
factor which invariably sets in after some time and people's intrinsic
love for peace and comforts resigns to fanaticism. The inferno of
aggressive sentiments between Iraq and Iran burned out after the ten
year war in the eighties.
Malignant aggression of the gangsters and mercenaries, as against
the ideological aggression of crusaders, does not burn out but is
smothered by opposing forces either by superior delinquent powers
or by the collective resistance of the law abiding forces of the society.
As the global society has evolved towards a communal existence through
the twentieth century, especially after the Second World War, a different
phenomenon has begun to emerge. Militancy and aggression needs sustenance
of resources. Whether a drug baron, a Mafioso, a militant dictator
or a Nation at covert war or a freedom fighter, they all need continuous
flow of funds. There is a delicate balance between militancy and resources.
Russian empire collapsed because it built a military superpower on
a third world economy. Saudi Arabia and Gulf States are vulnerable
because their military resources are insufficient to protect their
wealth. Israel can afford militancy because of its economic resourcefulness,
whether internal or external.
In the war against aggressive threats from Muslim militants (terrorism,
as it is labelled) US and its allies have adopted two concurrent strategies:
One of pre-emption that involves direct and brutal force (shock and
awe) and the other of starving the militants of their sources of funding
and sanctuaries.
The 'Establishment' in Pakistan has run out of opportunities to 'play
ball on both side of the fence'. It's volte-face on Afghan Policy
on gun-point dislodged the firmly imbedded stone of anti-India strategy,
based on a need for a 'strategic depth' which has become inverted
now since Afghani dissidents are using Pakistan for strategic depth
now against US hounding. The moss and grass roots of fanatical sentiments
that was anchoring the stone in the soil are exposed to rational scrutiny,
both internally and externally. Devoid of a secure mooring in the
soil for sustenance the grass roots have begun to wither.
It needs far less leverage to roll the stone down the hill now. The
agreement to develop a détente with India has trashed another
element of military's 'corporate strategy' that was succinctly (and
fallaciously) expressed by General Aslam Baig in early nineties when
he proclaimed that the critical mass of forces in Kashmir is half
a million soldiers, beyond which India will collapse. This was a misplaced
conceptual allegory to what happened in Afghanistan with the Russians.
Having come to terms with these bitter truths from the past, where
all previous thinking and planning has proven unsuccessful at a phenomenal
cost in terms of blood and resources, the question is where are we
heading to? There is much acerbic criticism being hurled at the Establishment
today from all quarters, some of it with a sarcastic "I told
you so" tenor, and much of it with allegations of betrayal to
devoted ideals.
I don't think this a time for scoring points of strategic wisdom;
we should let the historians have a say on that. The uncertainty and
vulnerability that the end of the status quo brings in its wake is
pregnant with foreboding prospects. We need to bury the hatchets,
so to say, and put our heads together to evaluate the opportunities
and the threats waiting on the road ahead. The winds of change have
begun to blow and nothing will stop them now. Starting from Libya's
change of heart to return to the fold of international comity of compliant
nations, Iran's agreement to cooperate in inspection of their nuclear
facilities, pressures on Pakistan to investigate and plug leaks of
nuclear technology and North Korea's softened stand are all leading
towards open door policies, globally.
Pakistan has been quite an insulated society in every respect - ideologically,
politically, economically and socially.
Some visible and some invisible barriers have secured this insularity
for the past fifty six years. Political thinking was circumscribed
by theology, Allama Iqbal and Mr. Jinnah's legacies. Politics has
been hemmed in between either dysfunctional parliamentary democracies
or military hegemonies. Economic policies have weaned selected vested
groups in the name of import substitution and capital formation. Socially
Pakistan has retrogressed from where once Lahore was known as the
'Paris of the East' to a punishment post for most diplomats and foreign
business men.
Opening up Pakistan, to SAARC countries and the rest of the world
is going to take careful transition management. The time is now for
thinking about a 'transition' strategy for a liberal and open Pakistan.
There are diverse forces and interest groups who will resist liberalisation
- fanatics, economic interests and moralists - and the lines of internal
divisions need to be drawn across progressive and retrogressive divides.
It is no time for factional schisms based on past political prejudices,
ethnicity or Ideologies. The sentiment of progressive change needs
to be adopted by both, those in power and those aspiring for it.
Political structures are skewed, economic policies restrictive, social
and moral dimensions isolationist. All these flaws need to be repaired
urgently if we are preparing for an open borders scenario. The change
will bring infinite opportunities and we can be best prepared to exploit
these if we have our own house in order first. If we submit to change
out of compulsion our internal flaws will be exposed fatally. If we
embrace change as rational converts we have a good chance of surviving
past mistakes and turning a new leaf. The change is inevitable but
what emerges out of the change is in our hands, till hence, at least.
We stand at cross roads of history; either we join those who lived
by the sword and died by the sword or those who had the survival instinct
to have lived by the sword but not die by it.
Iqbal Mustafa
10 January 2004
1150 words
|
