Pak Tea House » Pakistan » Strategic grandeur
Strategic grandeur
As if Pakistan’s domestic woes were not troubling, the unravelling of the US strategy and its implications are eluding even the best of strategists. Mind you, Pakistan is a place every third person is a ‘strategy’ expert and the term ‘strategic’, thanks to the militarisation of the Pakistani mind, is an ever-popular reference. The ideological domination of Pakistan’s discourse is a palpable reality. This is why, across the political spectrum one finds a sense of victory over the failure of US strategy in Afghanistan. This failure is interpreted as the validation of Pakistan’s ‘genuine’ and ‘legitimate’ interest in Afghanistan.
What has worried me most in recent weeks is the capitulation of the liberal-secular chatterati to this pop-discourse of military war games. One is not surprised when former generals and the hawkish hordes of former Foreign Office mandarins express their jubilation. But when supposedly rational and progressive experts pontificate about how ‘we’ have made ‘them’ fail, it is simply shocking. This identification of Pakistani nationalism and patriotism with the invasion of Kabul through proxies is a strange phenomenon. If I am not being too cynical, national pride, even in the jingoistic confines of nation-state narratives, has several other dimensions which are simply ignored. Those who are celebrating the US/Nato withdrawal (full or partial) are prima facie ignorant of the grave consequences of a Taliban regime in southern Afghanistan.
Three questions are of import. First, whether the delinking of Afghani Taliban from Al-Qaeda will take place in actual terms or not. Second, where would the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan be within the cooperation matrix; and third, what will happen to the larger issue of extremism and sectarianism in Pakistan? Thus far, these three issues remain unaddressed. The Jekyll-Hyde nature of state engagement with the issue of militancy is not sustainable. Above all, Pakistan’s tottering democracy is going to be further strained if the tide of Talibanisation gets out of control. This is where we find the policy debate unimaginative and regurgitating the national security fables, removed from the long-term interests of Pakistan.
We need to reassess state priorities. Our economy is in doldrums due to the refusal of Pakistan’s elites to pay taxes and their perennial squandering of public resources. Our youth is directionless, trapped in outdated collapsing education systems that do not provide skills. And jobs are not keeping pace with the demand. Sectarianism is now embedded in the social fabric and extremism has acquired legitimacy under the dominant ideology of global political Islam.
In these circumstances, ruling Kabul to contain the enemy — India — is hardly something to celebrate. If anything, Pakistan’s economy will get a boost through regional economic cooperation. But these concerns are marginal to mainstream strategic thinking. In fact, strategy is now a reflection of an adhoc, short-term view of military might and dominance. Pakistan is under attack from within. Its geostrategic location, admittedly, makes it difficult to focus exclusively on domestic imperatives. How can the good Taliban in the neighbourhood be good for the country? We are in an intractable situation, victims of our history and geography. Most importantly, we are victims of our own delusions of grandeur. Any change will have to re-engineer the Pakistani mind and disarm it of martial narratives. A tall order, but without achieving this our downward slide will continue and is likely to accelerate once the Americans start pulling out and our strategic assets march on to reclaim the depth we had gained in the 1990s. Are we condemned to repeat history? Only time will tell.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 13th, 2010.
Filed under: Pakistan
77 Responses to "Strategic grandeur"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- MilesToGo
said http://youtu.be/WxBfcusJRP0 - Rex Minor
said Tajender,
Your name is getting very popular. I sho... - tajender
said rex i cannot awnser u last 2 posts are not mine. - LV Outlet Paris Address
said Louis Vuitton Outlet Replica - Do Louis Vuitton Have Outlet Stores said Fake LV Outlet Online
- Maggu
said REXIE, so when are you moving to Afghanistan to be... - Rex Minor said Tajender,
Your two posts have less to do with Isla...
- Does LV Outlet Exist
said are Louis Vuitton Outlets Real - Genuine Louis Vuitton Online Outlet said Louis Vuitton Outlet Real Bags
- atap fiberglass said I think that is one of the most vital info for me....
Feroz:
Welcome back – great to see you here. You have made some excellent points and to a great extent I concur with you. Having said that let me also add to the debate that Pakistani Taliban are no longer a monolithic entity – they comprise multiple groups mostly of sectarian nature whose agenda is not compatible with a plural Pakistan as envisaged in the 1973 Constitution.
I am all for reintegration and political accommodation but how does one do it in our case?
Thanks for all the comments here – this has been an interesting debate save the acerbic remarks from Amar and a few others who continue with their rants leading to no debate.
Is Sardar Khan an indian?
I have no traditional religion.
I only encourage honesty. Is that a religion?
I want Pakistan to be richer than India so that don’t cast their eyes upon us.
Paradox:
If Pakistan fails it is dangerous for hindus in the short run.
If Pakistan succeeds then it is dangerous for the hindus in the long run.
So what should I wish for the land of pure anti-hinduism?
Is god a sadist and cynic that he puts us into such a dilemma?
@no-communal wrote on November 19, 2010 at 11:02 pm
“@amar
Pakistanis are not as embarrassed of Sardar Khan because he is not always around. Why don’t the two of you meet up and actually fight it out whose religion is better.”
NC – There are certainly a few brilliant minds who surf PTH, you being one of them. A duel between amar and sardar khan is the best idea thus far to settle the age old quarrels, misgivings, and claims of superiority ..
:)
It is easy to figure out weather Sardar Khan is an indian or Pakistani. Pakistani police and Army has pucca test to judge this fact. This testing method and its clean aftermath was very successful in Bangladesh and now routinly applied in NWFP.
@gandhi
Yes I might drop the Chau and keep the Han if it is beneficial to me. Would it be the first time a person’s last name changed? What were Rajputs called before they became Rajput? Changing identities, religions, and last names are a reality of life–get over it.
@Feroz
Your posts are interesting. A few points:
1. On China: The present communist regime did start as an insurgency back in the years of Mao. China’s ambivalence towards ongoing insurgencies and insecurity all along its southern flank is of great concern. China’s relationship with AFPAK in the era when the Talibs ruled the roost in Kabul with backing of China’s all weather client Pakistan, offers an excellent case study. China’s role in south Asia has not and does not promote the long term interests of the common citizens of the subcontinent.
2. On growing insurgency in Pakistan: All indications are that the genie carefully groomed by Pakistan Army has definitely escaped its strict confines and has found common cause and a fertile ground among the growing discontent and anger of the vast multitudes. When a human being has lost almost everything he holds on firmly to his last refuge in faith – where extreme Islam has grown its deep roots. The extreme view is on the rise not in decline.
3. Dangers of extreme Islam shrouded in orthodoxy is expanding at an alarming rate across the subcontinent – violently in Pakistan and less violently in India. Even in a far away remote village in southern India one finds age-old moderate Islam slowly yielding to strict orthodoxy with ominous allegiances owed in distant Iran or Arabia. It is not just Pakistan’s problem. India finds a lot to worry about in Pakistan’s problems.
Feroz Khan,
My point was simply that if Sheikh Essa persuaded the jihadis that the Pakistani military was guilty of “heresy” (rather than that the Pakistani military stood in their way of achieving political power) the religious element is front and center. What religion it is or is not is secondary. Also the purpose for obtaining political power is for a religious cause, not to amass wealth or reward followers or to do good for people.
Why jihadis exist in such power as not to be able to be locked up in jails is also very clear – they were cultivated for other purposes; but have slipped the leash.
Sheikh Essa’s followers were de-brainwashed (as per the article) rather than locked away as criminals, because the state has need of (loyal) jihadis.
Of course, the article may be non-factual.
@ Samachar (November 20, 2010 at 8:40 am)
The religion maybe a fig leaf, but the purpose for obtaining political power is always for secular reasons. Religion is an argument; a platform; a rallying cry and a theme of identification and consensus.
As asked before, if religion is the cause of obtaining political power, why religious leaders do not practice what they preach once they gain political power? Political power and its pursuits are secular ends and when religious leaders use religion to seek political power, religion ceases to be a religion and it becomes another political argument.
ciao
@ Raza Rumi
Agreed; Taliban are not a monolith and to consider them as one, would be a grave mistake.
Political reintegration and political accommodation under the present circumtances is not possible. To achieve this, first of all it would be necessary to define the political demands of the Taliban and their cohorts, who are fighting the state of Pakistan. Secondly, the state of Pakistan would have to weigh those demands and decide if it can “afford” them politically.
In asking this question, you have nailed the issue of why there is an insurgency. Had the demands been acceptable, to both parties, there would be an agreement and there would not have been an insurgency. The fact is; the insurgency implies that presumed demands are unacceptable to the both sides.
Political intergration into Pakistan might be unacceptable to the Taliban, who might be asking (and fighting) for a political autonomy.
The state of Pakistan might be fighting, because alternative would be to cede the tribal areas to the Taliban and the loss of the tribal areas is not acceptable to Pakistan.
Therefore, as I have been saying; this insurgency is about political power. I will add more to this, when time permits.
ciao
Raza //In these circumstances, ruling Kabul to contain the enemy — India — is hardly something to celebrate//
Well you will not be able to contain your enemy ‘India’ whether you rule Afghanistan or not. And Secondly Afghans will never salute you since they dont salute their own in the first place. Being fiercely independent each one of them is also a problem of its own…..
Avoid India in your discussions since we havent reached the stature of China to forcefully needle on every international issue and further, we are happy with our own issues, be it corruption, medals in Asiad et al….As regards Afghanistan, we shall continue to meddle in our own benign way (unlike your terror influenced ways ) since we cannot afford another mullahist neighbour who will propogate Zionist nonsense needlessly
Why dont you concentrate on your own issues and avoid us to needlessly revert with clarifications??????
and who is this Maj Iqbal / Maj Mallick in your defence systems who was so powerful as to plan an attack on Mumbai??? appreciate if you could guide towards this coward
Salman Arshad//We have China’s full support in fuming anti-India sentiment in the country, which apparently doesn’t have any context or reason//
Well Said. We shall handle Chinese in our own way going forward. They cannot F*** around with us since we are economically well tangled….we are no japanese that they blatantly blackmail us…..this was proved with recent visa issued to a Jammu Singer who will be in Asiad without a ‘Stapled Visa’….well whether Chinese consider only valley as a crisis is another matter altogether…at this instance, we shall work with chinese and see how we could manage these obelisks….India may not be Liliputs…they are not minnows either…..I am sure Chinese realise realise this.
Amar, while other people may arrive at similar conclusions as yours, it is quite unclear what you hope to accomplish with your posts. Telling a religious person his religion is crap is hardly ever productive.
You have said what you think. A smart person would leave those posts for others to read and take what they can out of them. But spending hours and days repeating the same thing isn’t a good use of the limited time we all have in our lives. Wish you the best!
Also to all the other Indians here: Don’t you think Indians are drowning out the Pakistanis on this site? I started coming here to understand the Pakistani perspective – not just of the editors of the site but also the rest of the English-speaking Pakistani elite who comment here. However, when 18 out of 20 comments on average are from Indians, the usefulness of this website not just for observers like us, but particularly to Pakistanis is highly reduced, imHo of course.
I’d rather that Indians withhold their opinions, at the most posting one comment per blogpost, so that the Pakistani voices can emerge.
Cheers!
Pakistani strategic thinkers are India’s best friends.
Their policies of wasting money on “strategic projects ” have only WEAKENED Pakistan.
Any country which wants to win against its powerful enemy makes itself strong economically .
Pakistan has nukes but your economy being in such a fantastic shape that every country looks ONLY at your begging bowl
The taliban being obedient servants of Pakistani Army should not explode bombs inside Pakistan
They taliban are so ungrateful after all that Pakistan has done for them
Now Pakistan is known for BEING
1. begging bowl
2. terrorist state
Frankly speaking I don’t know, where the fear of India will lead Pakistan in future. It is simple case of obsession. Obsession with India to to compete her, to surpass her, to defeat her, to malign her, and that too when it knows very well that India have more than 4th in area and more than 6th time in Population. It is definitely not a competition but only case of obsession.
I don’t think India would have devoted its whole energy against Pakistan otherwise it would have failed to produce miracle of economic growth which world is witness today. I expect and hope that the better sense prevailed in Pakistan too and they devote much time to betterment of their citizen, betterment of their economic mess for which they’re criticized by their own people, instead of in the ever anticipation of what India will do the next.
This is case of psychological war where one don’t sure the real motives of its enemy. India thinks that Pakistan is against its territorial integrity by challenging the status of Kashmir while Pakistan on one hand has an eye on Kashmir and on second hand it is fearing its own territorial integrity which she blames conveniently on India’s activity in Baluchistan.
The result is status quo. Which I think is more dangerous than a simple and conventional war. At least after war we know that there will be peace but in this case we don’t know how much we’ve to wait to see the estranged brothers meet again.
” and that too when it knows very well that India have more than 4th in area and more than 6th time in Population..”
S.T,
This is irrelevent to a Pak patriot who vehemently believes that 1 Pak Momeen= 10 Hindu Kuffar.
@ Raza Rumi, Part II
Picking up the theme once more, the comment that the Taliban are not monolithic should provoke a serious introspection of sorts. This, immediately, should prop the question that if the Taliban are not monolithic, then what is the salient implication of this statement?
Religion, and the cause of religion, is supposedely the unifying theme, which the Taliban use against the state of Pakistan. Religion is supposed to unify the Taliban and their patrons, Al-Qaeda, into an alliance of mutual interests. If the Taliban are not monolithic despite the motif of religion as a unifying theme/idea, then what does it say about their devotion to the cause of religion?
This creates, and should create, more than a reasonable doubt, in a rational mind devoid of religious blinkers the idea that the politics of the Taliban and their like-minded allies take precedence over religious matters.
This principle of logic can also be applied to the various sectarian groups, which exist in Pakistan. The very reality of these groups existing, fractured, and self-dividing themselves strongly suggests that religion is the not raison d’ etre of these groups.
If religion were to be the main concern of these groups, including Taliban’s, then religion and these groups adherence to it, would have disallowed for this apprent “disunity” in the ranks of the faithful.
However, this is not the case. The very non-monolithic aspect and orientation of these religious groups show that the politics of a secular nature, and secular politics are always motivated by considerations of power, take importance over religion in their policy decisions.
This cleft needs to be pryed open and this reality needs to be exposed, if the debate on the issue in the public forums of Pakistan is to understand this disparity between the intentions and actual conduct of these groups. Logic, and common sense, like a thin end of the wedge needs to be inserted into this mass of lies and hypocrisy and these differences, which exist within these so-called religious groups, need to be enlarged.
The act of “enlargement” is to create space for a political, intellectual maneuvering and once that space is created, it will allow the secular opinion in Pakistan to take away the thrust of the arguments away from religion and place them firmly in a non-religious context.
The idea is not to debate the isssues on “their term” and justify their interpretations, but make them defend their point of views. Religious ideas, when engaged in an intellectual discourse with secular ideas, do not have to be proven wrong as much as they need to shown as filled with contradictions and more importantly, contradictions which cannot explain or answer the reality of the experience.
If the Taliban and their allies and other sectarian groups are claiming religon as their cause, the need of the hour is not to debate the interpretation of a religion with them, but to simply ask that if religion is what they are fighting for; why are there so many groups fighting in the name of religion and why cannot there be one group fighting in the name and cause of religion? What is preventing them from unifying under the banner of religion?
Why cannot they unite? The coup d’ grace must always ask if they cannot unite under a religious banner, then what is preventing them from unifying? Politics?
This aggressive, rational, critical style of questioning must be conducted with the intention of forcing them into a silence; an admission of having plyed a flawed agrument. These religious groups will never admit that their real cause is political and not religious, but their refusal to admit this and their silence on the issue, will echo loudly.
Let the people “hear” their silence on the issue, because the caveat is not to defeat their arguments as much as to show they have no agruments to justify that which they claim.
The only proviso on this issue is, and for the tenor of this debate to change, the very impression, role, value, and importance of religion in the lives of the people, themselves, will have to undergo a change. Pakistani society is too accepting of anything said in the name of religion and this comes from our indoctrination, from the onset, to obey and respect and not to question religion or any act, deed, intention, argument, justification, or reason given under its rubric.
We must remember that reason is not always rational and rationalism is not always a reason.
The power of religion, and that of the groups which use religion, over us, comes from our obedience to their commandments and this needs to change. Before some outwardly secular but closet cleric on PTH jumps the gun into a sea of assumptions, this idea of a change is not so about the rejection of a religion as it about understanding the religion itself through acts of questioning it.
If we wish to lessen the role of these groups, we need to be cynical and critical of them and not accept everything they say on a prima facie level.
Can we do this? Do we have the intellectual courage to displace religion from its pedestal, where we placed it in the first place, and put it on a level playing field?
No; we cannot do this until we learn not to automatically, unthinkingly and unwittingly super-impose religion on to everything and see everything through a religious perseptive.
If we cannot do this, then religion and groups, which use religion will always have power over us, because we will do what they ask, of us, since we are too afraid to speak up in face of religion and question it, when it claims makes no sense to us.
To paraphrase an old line from an old play by an old playwright; the problem is not with the religion but with ourselves that we accept everything it says without thinking.
Rumi sahib, that is why you should not debate Islam or its interpretations with them, but only ask them questions, which they themselves refuse to answer.
ciao
Feroz Khan,
In fewer words – are you saying that once a Taliban group says that it is acting in the name of religion, it tends (in Pakistan) to mute criticism of that group?
Secondly, are you saying that if the various Taliban groups really believed they were acting in accord with religion, they would be unified instead of in many groups?
I can understand the first; but not the second. Hardline religious types tend not to compromise, and tend to divide themselves based on their varying answers of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Thirdly, asking the Taliban groups – “oh, is this indeed religion?” – this is something that should be done, agreed.
Samachar (November 21, 2010 at 11:19 pm)
To your first question; Yes.
Second question; Yes. With all due respect, you cannot understand the statement, because you still see it through a religious lens, as your comments about dancing angels prove it.
ciao
Feroz Khan,
If the answer to your second question stands, then Islam is not a religion – at least, not after the death of the Prophet, because that unity has never been there.
Dear Arjun: thanks for bringing some sanity and making an astute assessment on how some of your compatriots are posting silly, repetitive stuff. I was extremely happy to hear you cite the basic manners in a debate/discussion. But Amar does not get it. And, now we have another cyber-rath wala – Pankaj with a Mission. I am amazed at how PTH attracts the oddest of Indians while there are many belligerent anti-Indian blogs.
Feroz: Great comments once again. I will return with more thoughts later. Let me just make two points: first, power struggle and its essentially secular nature notwithstanding, the role of religious ideology is also important and cannot be discounted. The problem is that elements of Pakistani state also sympathise with the political Islam agenda especially in the context of West vs Islam binary. This is what makes the conflict more complicated and perhaps intractable.
Samachar (November 21, 2010 at 11:19 pm) Part II
There is popular refrain on PTH and else where that there is no complusion in Islam and Islam never forces one to to do anything against their will.
If these groups are forcing people to follow their ways, what does it say about these groups? Where is the Islam in their actions? Why has no one made the connection and pointed this out?
If these groups by their actions, have violated Islam and its teachings, why are the people afraid to point out the wrong? Why are the people not stating this fact and are basically appeasing non-Islamic practices by their silence?
Are we to understand that the good, pious and true Muslims of Pakistan are willing to condemn their souls in the next world because they are too afraid to die in the present world by speaking out against these practices?
Islam says that men are not to wear gold and yet, every mullah and his worth will have a gold watch on his hand. Why has no one asked the mullahs to explain this disparity? lol
ciao
Samachar
One dot means nothing. Two dots mean a straight line. Three dots mean a patten. Four dots, and you have a shape!
ciao
Samachar (November 21, 2010 at 11:19 pm)
Islam is a religion. My point does not negate this view but only states that secular concerns in politics will always overshadow religion and it is because of this, that the various sectarian and religious groups cannot join forces together as one.
ciao
Feroz writes:
“There is popular refrain on PTH and else where that there is no complusion in Islam and Islam never forces one to to do anything against their will.”
Islam is the religion with the maximum number of compulsions, manipulations, intimidations and the maximum amount of hypocrisy in denying (or refusing to accept) their existence in islam. The word “islam” itself means submission under a tribalist totalitarian arabic monogod-concept. Some compulsions in islam are subtle and hence even more effective and pain-causing. Even some non-muslims get carried away by muslim propaganda that there is no compulsion in and around islam.
to arjum and raza
PTH is not a world-moving website. It is not even pakistan-moving. Let us be realistic. Consequently your comments on me are also unrealistic. Everyone writes here in the whiff of the passing moment and theme. No one is writing here to produce a book that will be read by millions for many many years to come. We want to escape the dictatorships of religions and their primtive gods (god-concepts) and leaders.
Respected Raza Sir
Your reference : your post at 1:59 AM November 22
Thanks a lot for calling me a a man with a mission and a cyber rath wala.
I would like to emphatically state here that unlike my other fellow Indians I have never uttered a word against Islam simply because I have , here in India, Muslim friends and acquaintances who are all well educated and liberal .
So I know that Islam is NOT what it is practised in Pakistan
Hence I have repeatedly given the examples of Malaysia and Turkey
My statements have all been against the pakistan Army ‘s Talibanisation of pakistan.
And how Pak Army’s relentless hatred against India continues to be the only thorn in the way of better relations with India.
To achieve its goals Pak Army has used ONLY religion and converted most of the people into fundamentalist s and Hindu haters .
A moderate Pakistan DOES NOT SUIT Pak Army.
It is as simple as that