Recently an article by Farahnaz Isphahani titled “Democracy does deliver” (dated September 29, 2009) appeared in a section of the press. Having read some of Ms Isphahani’s previous security papers I can appreciate her mastery over words. However if I was expecting something ethereal from this piece I was sorely disappointed. What she lauds as a diplomatic win and which she considers a proof of democracy’s deliverance unfortunately is nothing more than the assurance of further foreign aid and not any historic empowerment of this nation. If my memory serves me right aid was given during the time of the recent dictator too. Similarly events like the FoDP also used to take place including Musharraf’s groundbreaking address to the American Jewish Community. Hence I hardly see it as sign of democracy delivering.
If democracy indeed delivers we should have seen a government more sensitive to the wishes of its own people rather than to the foreign accolades. As a student of international politics, she knows well that words and overtures hardly matter. What matters is a government’s capacity to govern its country and hence its popularity at home. Otherwise Musharraf too wasn’t unpopular in the international circles. He lost popularity here and was shown the door. Leaders in the third world aka new world are similarly short changed every other day.
If aid were enough for our development we should have been among the considerably developed countries of the world by now. But we clearly aren’t. The president’s recent statement in the UK that Pakistan needs more trade not aid, then, is most welcome. Yet even trade without domestic production is not enough. However that seems practically impossible given the crippling power outages in the country and the government’s credibility and transparency gap. We all know that the party returned to power with the huge baggage of troubled reputation. Even if that tarnished image was a frame up, one would have hoped that this time it would have learnt some lessons, but now that too unfortunately seems akin to being foolishly simplistic. Just like the capital in economy, political capital is a precious commodity. And at the heart of this capital lies trust. If a government fails to win the trust of its citizens, the torrents of criticism reduce it to the depths of insecurity. You cut deals after deals with the devil to stay in power and yet power at this cost becomes nothing but a mere anathema. It is not a quite a hidden secret that the past two terms of the PPP were cut short by the allegations of corruption. While Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto had to go in exile, her husband and our current president had to endure a huge spell of imprisonment. So this time the party and its government could have played a more cautious role. A stitch in time saves nine, they say. And a little more attention to details, transparency and sensitivity to the public perception could have done the trick. But no sir, just like in the past, the party has alienated almost every segment of the society through its antics and semantics, within a short span of time. There must be some special recipe for such an unmitigated disaster and yet when the government cannot hide how poorly it has performed in the public opinion, it picks the gun and shoots the messenger. No doubt then that just like Joseph McCarthy its media managers spend more time in dubbing every critic, unpatriotic. This brand of McCarthyism has compromised considerable precious time which could otherwise have been used to solve a few more problems of the country. View Full Article »
Latest Entries »
It has become something of a political cliché to blame Zia-ul-Haq for everything intolerant in this country. I have no desire to defend Gen Zia for his legacy (if you can call it a legacy at all) had the worst impact on our social fabric. Yet blaming one man or one regime for every negative trend in the society is not only overtly simplistic albeit politically convenient but it has the potential of distracting us from finding the real causes of intolerance. It is true that Zia introduced us to the culture of Jihadi non state actors, drug and weapon proliferation and of course the political intolerance in the garb of wafer thin religiosity. But were the laws on prohibition and on the issue of Qadianis not adopted much before Zia’s takeover. And of course who can possibly forget the Rawalpindi conspiracy case? There most certainly is, then, a legacy of intolerance aided and abetted by political opportunism which has brought us to the current precipice.
Just a few days ago Altaf Hussain called for the Qadianis to be allowed to preach their faith freely. However within no time we found him, under political duress of course, reiterating the importance of Khatam Nabuwat (or finality of Prophethood). This has assumed the shape of a pattern. A politician comes out with a statement in defense of this politically underprivileged community, the next thing we know is that the same person is found reiterating his Muslim credentials out of fear of being declared a non-Muslim or Qadiani. Unfortunately while the civil society has grown considerably in this country it has not been able to fight such sorry trends. Protecting someone’s right to exist does not mean that you have to become one of his lot. I am not a Qadiani and have never been attracted by their worldview but that does not mean that I do not feel duty bound to fight for the rights of a Qadiani citizen or any minority group and their right to exist. One should have expected at least this much from the enlightened few in a polity committed to democracy and republicanism. Yet in this gloom such hope is hard to come by.
The biggest problem here is that thanks to the indoctrination of our religious elite our people are unsure whether they want to be a retrogressive and of course reductionist theocracy or a modern progressive democracy. And this summation is not one Bush’s proverbial my way or the highway quasi choices. History bears testimony to the fact that there are only two kinds of states today: the states which owing to some ideational or other contradictions are failing rapidly and the states that have opted to attach more importance to the rights of their citizens instead of ambiguous ideologies and hence are prospering steadily. Plainly black and white here and no gray areas. If you do not agree kindly find one country today that has made it to the top harmoniously with an ideology rather than the rights of its citizens as a priority. I know someone may mention China or Israel but while the former is rapidly reforming its worldview in order to progress the latter is still facing huge existential challenges.
If truth be told our own radicalization owes a lot to the existential issues. A country carved out of India for the Muslims of the subcontinent certainly needed a grand narrative as a rationale for existence, or so it was thought. The Muslim religious elite that had actually opposed the creation of this state then started advocating for a religious as opposed to a secular state. What was the point in creating a separate country if it was to be as secular as India, they asked. And hence a grand narrative based on religiosity was invented which has been exploited thus far by the religious rent seekers to gain a wide berth.
Faith, however, is a private matter and so should it remain. A state should have nothing to do with such private matters. As for the grand narratives here is an antidote. To my generation that was born in this country, especially after the fall of Dhakka, apart from a mere academic debate, it matters not how or why this country was founded. It is our home and we do not need any excuse for its existence. What matters to us is its strong, pluralistic and democratic future. If future custodians of the country, the civil society and the citizenry at large grasp this simple fact of life, I am sure that the political class will follow suit in fighting the retrogressive and intolerant trends. Enough of the reductionist blackmail then.
A recent advertisement dominat ing a quarter of several newspapers’ front pages carries President Asif Ali Zardari’s picture with the legend Quaid-i-Pakistan. Undoubtedly, a minister desirous of pleasing the president simply overdid what he intended. Yet what would have I not given to see a government ad urging people to contribute in some official fund for girls’ education founded to commemorate president’s one year in office. And yet we all know that no such initiative is in the offing. This advertisement then sums up the current government’s erroneous media policy.
The government has many troubles of its own making and yet it fails to see the biggest threat to its existence namely sycophancy. It fails to comprehend that reality is more potent than mere perceptions. That is exactly why it reacts so sharply to any form of criticism and in doing so alienates many of its erstwhile and honest supporters. This reactionary bent of mind is mainly due to the perception of being under siege. And yet as this reactionary attitude strengthens, transparency is compromised, bolstering the widespread perception of corruption and eventually the very fear of siege itself. No wonder then that the current government’s performance is spiralling downwards as its intolerance mounting.
It is clear today that the Zardari-Gilani government did not merely inherit a mounting burden of problems from the Musharraf regime, it also did a coterie of sycophants. It is clear that owing to Mohtarma Benazir’s assassination when it came to forming the government her party was not well prepared. And since the baggage of the past was too onerous, it was caught clueless. In such a situation the coterie of sycophants who had brought Musharraf to such a steep end of his political career in order to survive flocked around Zardari. And it did make perfect sense. These Platos had staked everything for Musharraf thinking that he would win in the end. Now they certainly needed some breathing space. And in came Zardari, memory fresh with people who kept publishing stories or comments on how corrupt he was, during his confinement. Sceptical of the traditional media and the judiciary who in any case have always shown less sympathy towards the PPP than other political concerns he embraced this coterie readily. But now what? Musharraf’s stigma has successfully been attached to the new president and hence he has to fight the past misperceptions about him simultaneously. Only it would have been good had he been putting good fight, but no sir, he seems to have given up the fight altogether. Resultantly the traditional image management has been left to the catfights of the ministers on the tube. The one who earns more brownie points on the television gets awarded according to her/his accomplishments. This strategy however cannot bear any durable results as to the viewers it sounds nothing more than the good old sycophancy. View Full Article »
On August 23, 1973 a man walked into a bank in central Stockholm and took the people present there hostage. The hostage situation lasted for six days during which the captives instead of despising their captor started showing signs of loyalty towards him and his friend who joined him shortly. This process of indoctrination, that brought such an astounding shift in the captives’ perception, was later dubbed as ‘the Stockholm syndrome’ by the scholars of the field. While the above robbery may not be too old the Stockholm syndrome is perhaps as old as the history itself. In extreme situations, the mortally threatened victims impressed by some simple acts of kindness, ideational indoctrination or at times even a good work of oratory readily inhale the propaganda of their assailants.
In Pakistan too, a news channel recently reported from the first IDP camp that a pair of twins born there were named after Mullah Sufi and Mullah Fazlullah. For those who think that the war there has been fought and won, this manifestation of the Stockholm syndrome may come as a surprise but in reality its prospects have always been too rational. The question that then arises is what was the point of waging the war against the terrorists if the result was further proliferation of militancy and extremism? And through deduction, was this war necessary.
As someone who has vociferously advocated against the benighted worldview of the brand Taliban, I have no doubt that this war was absolutely necessary. Human rights abuses are hardly new but if someone uses a perversion of faith to justify them in a religiously rooted society it is akin to introducing a spark in a huge dump of explosives. Add to it the fact that the Taliban in Swat had shown every intention to extend their territorial control continuously and you realize what havoc could be wreaked in a country fighting for its soul. However there are umpteen aspects of this war that can be debated.
A few days after the start of operation Rah-e-Rast TV anchors were invited to the PM house for an interaction with the Prime Minister. The main focus of the Prime Minister’s talk was the government’s thus named 3 R (Relief, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction) strategy. The question that I asked the Chief Executive of my nation was regarding 2 Cs namely consistency and contingency planning. Regarding the former there is absolutely no doubt that this federal government has a huge deficit of consistency as it keeps flip-flopping on very important national matters. Consider the issue of the restoration of judges, first the PPP leadership signed the Bhurban declaration, then vowed never to restore the Chief Justice and finally under duress restored him. Likewise first against all sane advice it cut a deal with the extremists in Swat, then brought it into the parliament, then all of a sudden operation was launched, it was two days after the commencement of the operation that the PM came on TV and announced it and an All Parties Conference was convened to build consensus even after that. A consistent policy would have witnessed slightly different sequence of events. As for contingency planning it takes no rocket scientist to understand that any military operation would cause considerable displacement. In fact since in the mountainous areas sounds of blasts generate echo, the number of displaced persons is usually expected to grow. Yet curiously enough both federal and provincial governments never saw it coming. No wonder then that the PM was not chuffed about my remarks.
Yet the state of denial is bound to lift one day. In case it ever does perhaps then the government would lend its ears to reason. There indeed are numerous operational issues including the inexperience and lack of capacity in fighting low intensity insurgency on the part of our army and the administration’s inability to view all Taliban affected areas, including FATA, in holistic terms. Yet let us focus here on the humanitarian aspects of the operation and the fact that it is absolutely imperative to win hearts and minds while securing territory from the terrorists.
Here we need to appreciate one subtle fact of life. Darkness does not have any physical existence of its own; it is the name of mere absence of light. The easiest way to get rid of the dark hence is to switch on the light. Likewise while it is commonplace to claim that the Taliban’s version is nothing more than a perversion of Islam, let us hope that we also believe in it. If we agree that it is nothing more than that, it naturally flows that there too exist a true set of Islamic principles that negate this retrogressive and reductionist worldview. May I ask how much government resources are being dedicated to find and perpetuate such disarming principles? It is imperative for the states the world over dedicate considerable amount of resources in such pursuits. If today we do not find our own administration taking any particular interest it is because we have not been able to get rid of political adhocism. Similarly the military has been in government for so long that the politicians seem content at having outsourced all critical defense matters to the army. Yet it will have to change for war is too serious a business to be left to the generals.
The first need of the hour is to counter the propaganda with propaganda. If at a point in time it was realized that shutting down Fazlullah’s radio station was proving impossible, the administration should have inundated the local populace with radio transmissions to counter Fazlullah’s propaganda in same dialect. It was never done. Similarly thanks to the callousness of our successive governments the pulpits of the country’s uncountable mosques are being used as the vehicle of the terrorists’ propaganda. A counter-propaganda campaign focusing on the mosques and the religious class is in order and this cannot be done by challenging their worldview but discrediting the terrorists as a cultural other and if possible a cultural antithesis.
Something deserves to be said about Pervez Musharraf’s anti terror campaign. While many of his strategic decisions seem correct in retrospect it is worth noting that he lost the battle of hearts and minds. In fact the campaign to portray him as a westernized liberal meant to win the west’s approval returned to these shores in quite a garbled form. Add to it the habit of shooting the mouth with characteristic apathy and you find how it helped in substantiating the countrywide negative perceptions. Consider this: When asked to reflect on the brutal way in which many young Pakistani were killed in containers immediately after the US invasion of Afghanistan, he shot back, “Did I ask them to go there”? Military operations cause a lot of pain and suffering which despite being inevitable can be healed through a sensitive healing touch of the leadership. The country’s leadership however needs to appear at the top of things and not struggling against any US or foreign pressure. A well planned strategy to win over the hearts and minds with the help of the media, the religious elite and the intelligence community can work wonders in healing the Stockholm syndrome.
The writer is a talkshow host, columnist and blogger. He can be contacted through his website: www.pitafi.com
(The article was carried in Sept 9, 2009’s Daily The Nation, Lahore. You can visit it by clicking here.)
I was hosting a debate show on Pakistan’s Afghan Policy that I realized how impoverished are we as a nation in the field of policy planning. While it is true for almost all sectors in the context of Afghanistan our confusion is really hurting us. To qualify my point I must submit that Pakistan has had Mujahideen policy, Taliban policy even anti-Soviet policy but never a coherent Afghan policy. If you want to know more about my confusion on this issue you will have to watch the program that is to be aired on Saturday (August 22) at 10 PM only on News1 TV. If you miss it you will have to watch its repeat at 5:20 AM on Sunday morning. I will also try to youtube the program once it is aired.
However I believe that the Afghan policy has to have the following aspects. First it should be a state to state policy not merely a regime policy. Second where our country has to focus on the people rather than the state instead of focusing on politics which is bound to alienate everyone we should focus only on developmental work. We have run a humongous humanitarian campaign over past three decades in the shape of hosting the Afghan refugees. If some planning takes place this role can help us bolster Pakistan’s stature in the eyes of an average Afghan. Third, we should seek international help especially that of Mr Holbrooke in convincing the Afghans to recognize the Duran Line as a formal border. This will help in abolishing a major source of conflict in the approaching years. And there should be no harm in believing in democracy when it comes to our neighbors rather than just our own selfish interest that may undermine democracy abroad. Hence no Taliban policy but a durable answer to our multi dimensional woes vis-a-vis Afghanistan.
PS: In order to know more about my program “National Interest” mentioned above please visit http://nationalinterest.pitafi.com
Let us face it. I have never met Jaswant Singh. Not even when he came to Lahore. Those were emotional days and the Lahore yatra was shrouded by the twin specters of nuclearization and Kargil. I, being a mere student, could not infiltrate the big crowds of the protesters and the security apparatus. But even in those days and later in my slow progress as a journalist we used to admire his mastery of diplomatic language, his poetic license with English language and yes we used to wish for a Foreign Minister with the equal guts. Perhaps it was the same appreciation that led me to record in one of my columns published in a national daily ages ago that Jaswant Singh would be the best candidate to succeed Atal Jee. But then may be I am cursed. People I see as the best hopes for India’s secularism end up being marginalized. Yes I like Natwar Singh and Digvijay Singh too and see how they have been scapegoated.
But if India does not respect those who appear to me its best does not mean that I necessarily wrong or the subjects of my appreciation are any less likable. Certainly not. I think time and again Jawant Singh has proven that despite being a bit aggressive towards Pakistan he is a statesman rather than just a politician. He is among those who are seriously trying to find solutions for the Indian people. I believe that his recent book on Pakistan’s Quaid-e-Azam M. A. Jinnah is just another serious attempt to harmonize his people with the reality of his neighboring Pakistan. I have not read it yet but am really looking forward to finding this tome on our bookshelves. Let us hope that unlike Modi’s Gujarat this book is not banned here. Ideas should be treated just like ideas and not security threats.
I therefore really saddened by his expulsion from his party. It is sickening to realize that his party refuses to read the writing on the wall and ad nauseam tries to Modi-fy or Gujarati-fy the entire country despite the clear popular verdict. While the people of Gujarat might have chosen to live in perpetual fear, it is clear that the rest of India has changed beyond BJP’s imagination. The Indian people now want leaders who understand their economy, believe in secularism and want to live and harmony with their neighbors. That is why Manmohan Singh was brought back to power with such roaring majority. If you don’t believe me try reading his interviews during the final days of the campaign and you will know how he portrayed chances of peace with Pakistan over Kashmir a near success. Our Indian friends often forget that no matter how troubled Pakistan is a reality. I do not care for which ideology it was born, all I care is that it is my home and I love it. If India only recognizes this fact the result may usher in an era of peace and tranquility. Likewise if BJP grasps the fact that its own future lies in secularism not in the Sangh Pariwar’s idiosyncrasies it might be able to re-emerge as a lasting political power. Otherwise I predict that Jaswant is just the first of imminent brain drain and the resulting fall in the party’s stature.
I can bet that the trigger happy leadership was so keen to shoot from the hip that it did not even care to read the book. Jaswant Singh may well be a writer of poetic sweep but he being a politician is after all also a pragmatist. How could he write anything so alien to his country’s ethos besides respecting the spirit of free inquiry. For heaven’s sake India is supposed to be the world’s biggest democracy and not a tin pot reductionist theocracy. India’s second biggest party should hence be able to see reason and apologizing from Mr Singh readmit him and give him his due. As for the book, I reserve my judgment until I have read it cover to cover with the only hope that I will find delightful prose in it. And I leave you with Anjum Niaz’s lovely interview with Jaswant Singh. All you have to do is to follow the link:
http://www.jaswantsingh-mp.com/interview/jinnah_jaswant.html
In the second season of 24, black President David Palmer is momentarily impeached on the charges of incompetence to manage a serious national crisis. While this exercise is not shown to be driven by any racist tendencies, it couldn’t be plainer to me that the revolting cabinet did not, to best of my memory, have any other black member. Hence a typical racist behavior of not trusting a black man in the hour of need. Something of the same sort seems to be happening today to Barack Obama.
But before I elaborate any further I must furnish some memories here too for to me they are of critical import. During the run up to the elections in my work for television and also in my columns and blog posts I was very emaphatically supporting Obama’s campaign for he appeared to me the only symbol of hope. In fact I was perhaps the only Pakistani columnist who formally endorsed Obama candidacy. It was during the special coverage shows with Mubasher Lucman that I continuously kept emphasising that Bradley Factor was a thing of past and one should never underestimate the prowess of the American democracy. Would you believe me that almost all seasoned intellectuals of my country used to make fun of me openly calling me delusional. Was I wrong then? I think not. Within no time the election results were visible and Obama won with considerable majority. So when today people are challenging Obama’s presidency on the pretext that maybe he was born in Kenya and not in the US hence not qualified to be in the White House should I think I was wrong? I believe not. Why? Because even in those days I never claimed or believed that the specter of racism has been rooted out from the US. Certainly not. Weirdos are present everywhere. But I then believed as I do now that the US has become culturally strong enough that racism can confortably be beaten during the elections. Hence the demise of the Bradley Factor. It is my firm belief even now that those who want to harm Obama just because he is not WASP will fail. O for heaven’s sake we are talking about the country which introduced constitutional and republican democracy to the world.
Unfortunately I smell the similar odor of racism in the works both scholarly and journalistic which are trying to paint Obama as a failing president. Why can such intellectuals give Bush time for over two terms to perform despite his lack of faculties when they are not ready to tolerate mere six months of the Obama presidency? Racism, no? Well simply put Obama is a human being and lacks a magic wand. He cannot overcome the eight years of solid mismanagement in every sphere over night. He will need time to make, learn and correct his own mistakes before he can alleviate the negative impact of the previous administration. Writing him off today hence is akin to jumping the gun. There is no question that his election and then peaceful overtures have indeed helped the US to regain its lost stature in the comity of nations. Why should we think then that he cannot steer the country out of the multifaceted crises? I think Mr Obama himself, his administration and the rest of us should be more ready to have faith in his capabilities. The current stage then is only a momentary affair and hence will pass. We should also remember that just like David Palmer if Mr Obama is not always acting in accordance with our expectations it does not mean that being black or of mixed raced he lacks the necessary substance to make right decisions. He may have several reasons (perhaps often hidden from our eyes or ears owing to secrecy) for a delayed or calculated response. And instead of being a weakness they may prove to be signs of his vision and caliber.
Meanwhile Mr Obama should also remember that while a lot of lip service can be paid to words like middle path or the team of rivals, in today’s world no such thing exists. In fact Lincoln lived and ruled centuries ago and he was assassinated in the end hence this faith in bringing the polar opposites together hardly paid the dividend. Obama’s victory was as much a reaction to the previous government’s failed policies as much as it was a vote of confidence in his capacities. While trying to bridge the gap in a divided America, he should not forget the people who made his campaign possible. And when I say this I never imply that he should become a leftist. Far from it, yet he should remain a democrats rather than trying to invent a poor mixture of republicans and democrats. Poetry is good but politics should be dealt like politics is supposed to be for he is a politician and not a poet.
Here let me quote a rather irrelevant example. Since during the Bush administration’s days I used to write vociferously against his rule, nothing could endear me to the US mission here. This also hindered my journalistic functions too for we journalists have to depend also on foreign missions here for information especially in the age of the war on terror. After the exist of Bush administration I had expected that things would change at least in terms of access to information, but since hardly anything has changed in the mission here the same pro Bush lot is given preference. And here am I who had believed in change against all advice waking up and finding that the more the things change the more they remain the same. If I can feel bitter while sitting in the Pakistani city of Lahore think of the countless Americans with the actual vote clueless due to the slow pace of change.
Those of you who have seen my programs will know that apart from the regular Lahore Update, I also host a two hour debate show called the National Interest every Saturday night at 10 PM only on News1 TV (yes not TV1 but its sister concern News1 TV). It has been my conviction that I should generate debate on all crucial issues of national import with a fresh, young perspective.
The program to be scheduled this Saturday (August 8, 2009) is focused on the issue of Blasphemy and the Blasphemy Law. An attempt has been made to discuss all pros and cons of the issue especially because four sad incidents have already occurred only during the last ten days. Believe me it was a very tough topic to handle especially since an essential segment of the debate was the conservative religious elite. The program nevertheless was recorded in harmony.
The moment the program is aired I will try to post the youtube link here. The program is to be aired tonight at 1o PM (Pakistan Standard Time) and will be repeated at 5 AM Sunday morning and then 3 PM during the same day. Please note that this initiative was taken to create awareness on the issue and that no personal or hidden agenda was involved. Since I believe this strongly about the issue of blasphemy I want you all to watch it. Moreover I have also created a permanent website niche for the program. You can access it by clicking on the following link: http://nationalinterest.pitafi.com . For the benefit of those who cannot understand Urdu as the program is in Urdu I will also try to post the salient points of the discussion here in English once the program is aired alongwith my own commentary on the issue. Hence you are requested to bookmark this post and revisit it in a day or two.
(To be updated).
Every day since my post about the question of Pakistan recognizing Israel I receive a host of hate messages. Some have gone to the extent of dubbing me as a mole of the Yahuud o Nasara (Jews and the Christians). The reason perhaps is that our friends still think that Islam and Arabs are synonymous. And from this flows the incoherrent argument that perhaps the Arab friends will also consider Pakistan as a brother nation. Had it been the case though there would never have been conflict between the Arab nations, and of course Pakistan would have been supported thoroughly by our Arab “brothers”. Unfortunately the case is never this and at every hour of need Pakistan finds itself alone and seriously jeopardized. Likewise while before the onslaught of the war on terror we used to treat every Arab in this country with almost religious reverence. Even after the start of this war those who have sympathy for Osama bin Laden, trust him because he is an Arab. Yet when some Pakistani is arrested in any part of the Arab world, criminal or not, he is never shown mercy. Have you any idea how many Pakistanis have beheaded in Saudi Arabia alone? Take the example of the Pakistani family from Karachi stranded in that country. It has been proven that the family is innocent but we were told that its members would not be returned till the time actual culprits were not handed over to them. Now does it not strike you as a glaring case of contradiction? Innocents being kept in custody to barter them with the guilty ones. I mean come on folks we all know what happens to the Pakistanis who go and work in the Arab world and how they are treated? Can it be called racism? Why not. Just to prove this point I give you the example of a Arab rap video uploaded on youtube apparently by a some Indian hate groups. While my Arabic is considerably weak it is evident from the video that it has been made by Arabs and it is brimming with hate towards our country. I am not suggesting here that somehow we should start reciprocating by hate crimes. Yet should we not at least understand that the Arab love affair with India has not ended yet and we should do what is in our national interest rather than theirs?
Israeli citizens were among the victims of the ruthless butchery of the Mumbai attacks. Israel could have very conveniently succumbed to the Indian warmongering against Pakistan. Yet it did not. The Israeli government was really cautious and restrained in blaming any country for this open genocide. A few days after the attacks the Israeli Ambassador to New Delhi Mark Sofar made some very keen observations.
Urging India to employ only pacifist means vis-a-vis, he maintained that there was no comparison between Israel’s action against Hezbollah hideouts and Indian desire to carry out surgical strikes on Pakistani soil. “It will be wrong to take a response of one part of the world to extrapolate immediately to somewhere else,” he said. Such sane talk is need of the hour for hawks on both sides of the border are egging their governments on, to wage full blown war. This indeed is not the voice of a foe. It has never occurred to any of our anti-Semitic firebrands that Israel and Pakistan have much in common. Need more proof?
Consider this quote from Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh bible, We, or, Our Nationhood Defined by M. S. Golwalkar: “To keep up the purity of its race and culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races — the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here… a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by.” In other words India is being advised to take a leaf out of Hitler’s anti-Semitism. Both Israel and Pakistanhave faced huge challenges since their very birth and both want acceptance of their right to exist in hostile regions.
Pakistan Israel relations have never been exemplary. Both countries have tried to keep their interactions hidden from the wider audience. However, Sofar has summed up this relationship in a nutshell: “We have had from time-to-time contacts, here and there with Musharraf, who met, and the previous Pakistani foreign minister who met the previous Israeli foreign minister, but to talk of any meaningful relationship between Israel and Pakistan is really way off the ball and nowhere near where we are… Israel had a lot to offer to Pakistan … the decision is in its court and it clearly has decided to go elsewhere.”
It is astonishing that while Pakistan does not officially recognize the state ofIsrael, the passports of the Pakistani citizens single it out as the only prohibited place and hence recognizing it by default. Again it is beyond my comprehension why at time when Muslim countries like Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Qatar have relations with Israel and even Saudi Arabia is mulling over possibilities of establishing contacts, in Pakistan we have done nothing to build a relationship.
Apparently this boycott of reason stems from the desire to see the resolution of the Palestinian issue. Yet it has quite correctly been pointed out by Israeli leaders that in the absence of bilateral relations between the two statesPakistan has no locus standus on the matter. If Pakistanis want to play a more constructive and proactive role in the matter it logically follows that we do what is due. If recognizing Israel is the logical step to take it is reasonable to ask ourselves what are we bound to lose in case we go ahead and establish formal relationship.
Rationally speaking we hardly have anything to lose. Granted that there can be a backlash from the rightwing elements in the country but that already exists as a permanent feature in this country. It is true that some among the Arab citizens may not consider it too much friendly a gesture but I am sure the Arab states will understand the compulsions.
With our Arab brothers this understanding is mutual. For instance you’ll remember that when King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was the crown princePakistan used to be most hospitable and respectful host. But many in Pakistan were highly disconcerted when despite full understanding of the Indo-Pak tensions after assuming the throne the first thing the Saudi King did was to accept the Indian invitation to be the guest of honour at its national day parade even before visiting our country. But the attitude of Pakistani government was realistic and tolerant.
On the other hand Pakistan is bound to gain a lot from this quite reasonable choice. During the current Indo-Pak standoff we have not heard even a word of reason from any Muslim country. No Muslim country has advised Indiapublicly to show restraint. Pakistan stands today highly isolated on the world stage. One by one we are losing all diplomatic levers and even old friends likeChina find it difficult to come to our rescue. It is time to give up the ridiculously contradictory policy and embrace true diplomacy. In fact when Pakistandecided to a part of the war on terror and inadvertently brought the war to its own soil, any justification or defense for this contradictory mentality were lost.
Pakistan had consciously chosen to be a modern state rather than opting to transform into a medieval polity. While some of the methods of the past government might be wrong this choice was indeed correct.
Pakistan stands today on the same forked path where it stood at its very inception. For sixty three years Pakistan has allowed ideational contradictions and total denial of realities to cloud its judgement. If the correct decision is delayed any further our strained polity may not be able to sustain the weight of denial any further. We need strong modern allies whose relationship can actually benefit us rather than pulling us down the retrogressive path.
And let us see it this way. There is nothing wrong in our collective desire to see the Palestinian issue resolved. However our current state of suspended animation has hardly ever helped the cause of our Palestinian friends. IfPakistan has formal relations with Israel, it can play a more proactive role in the resolution of the Palestinian issue and the protection of the Al Aqsa Mosque. While our recognition of Israel would not mean total adherence to its stand on the Palestinian issue, we need to admit that Israel being a democracy is open to the positive influences of moderation. When we have nothing to lose, what qualms do we have in exploring what Mr Sofar promises when he says, “Israel had a lot to offer to Pakistan“?
