Al Qaeda, Taliban and the Military in Pakistan by K. Gajendra Singh SignUp
Boloji.com
Boloji
Home Kabir Poetry Blogs BoloKids Writers Contribute Search Contact Site Map Advertise RSS Login Register
Boloji
Channels

In Focus

Analysis
Cartoons
Education
Environment
Going Inner
Opinion
Photo Essays

Columns

A Bystander's Diary
Business
My Word
PlainSpeak
Random Thoughts

Our Heritage

Architecture
Astrology
Ayurveda
Buddhism
Cinema
Culture
Dances
Festivals
Hinduism
History
People
Places
Sikhism
Spirituality
Vastu
Vithika

Society & Lifestyle

Family Matters
Health
Parenting
Perspective
Recipes
Society
Teens
Women

Creative Writings

Book Reviews
Ghalib's Corner
Humor
Individuality
Literary Shelf
Love Letters
Memoirs
Musings
Quotes
Ramblings
Stories
Travelogues
Workshop

Computing

CC++
Computing Articles
Flash
Internet Security
Java
Linux
Networking
Analysis Share This Page
Al Qaeda, Taliban and the Military in Pakistan
by K. Gajendra Singh Bookmark and Share
 

Conflict between Rulers and Clerics in Islam
' Which way the Sunni terror monster turn!

"What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"." Nonsense--" added Brzezinski when asked in 1997 "If Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today." Brzezinski was President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser.

"The United States has supported radical Islamic activism over the past six decades, sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly," and is thus "partly to blame for the emergence of Islamic terrorism as a world-wide phenomenon." Robert Drefuss

'The grip of conservative Islamism on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border is the legacy not just of George Bush, of course, but decades of US meddling in the region, and its sponsorship of the anti-Soviet mujahideen in the 1980s in particular. -- a byproduct of the systematically counter-productive nature of western policy across the wider region since 2001. After seven years of lawless invasion and occupation, the war on terror is everywhere in ruins.

'The limits of American military power have been laid bare in the killing fields of Iraq; Iran has been transformed into the pre-eminent regional power; --- a resurgent Taliban is leading an increasingly effective guerrilla war in Afghanistan; and far from crushing terror networks, the US and its allies have spread them to Pakistan--- Pakistan is being ripped apart by the fallout from the Afghan occupation. If the US escalates, the impact will be devastating-- The country now shows every sign of slipping out of the control of its dysfunctional civilian government - and even the military that has held it together for 60 years, ' Seumas Milne in The Guardian 5 March,2009.

Observations and Reactions to Growing Influence of Terror Groups in Pakistan

Writes Ahmed Rashid in his book 'Descent into Chaos'; ' Afghanistan is once again staring down the abyss of state collapse, despite billions of dollars in aid, forty-five thousand Western troops, and the deaths of thousands of people. The Taliban have made a dramatic comeback.... The international community had an extended window of opportunity for several years to help the Afghan people'they failed to take advantage of it.

'Pakistan...has undergone a slower but equally bloody meltdown.... In 2007 there were 56 suicide bombings in Pakistan that killed 640 people, compared to just 6 bombings in the previous year....
In 2008, American power lies shattered.... US credibility lies in ruins.... Ultimately the strategies of the Bush administration have created a far bigger crisis in South and Central Asia than existed before 9/11.'

"There's blame at India, Afghanistan, Russia, basically everyone else," said Rashid, a well known expert on the region, "The government has its head in the sand. It's very bleak."

But there is little sense yet of a concerted effort to push back the Jihadis in Pakistan, who have exposed the fragility of the federation and resurrected fears that the country is heading towards break-up.

Maleeha Lodhi, a former senior Pakistan diplomat in London and Washington, said the pact (with Taliban in Swat) was a disaster in both local security and human rights angle with serious implications "First and foremost it represents a retreat from Jinnah's Pakistan," referring to the country's founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. "It is the very antithesis of [his] visions and ideals, the core of which were a modern, unified Muslim state, not one fragmented along obscurantist and sectarian lines." The deal, Lodhi added betrayed the people of Swat and could mark a turning point in Pakistan's struggle against extremism. "Rattled by more aggressive actions by militants, the political and security establishments caved in to the challenge ... The deal signaled weakness and bankruptcy on the part of the ruling elite that [has] chosen appeasement," she concluded.

A more surprising statement came from Maulana Fazlur Rahman, the leader of the pro-Taliban Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam party, who warned the national assembly: "If Taliban continue to move at this pace they will soon be knocking at the doors of Islamabad." (It is similar to the competition for power among various shades of extremist Sikh and Akali groups in Indian Punjab in 1980s)

"Everyone and his dog knows this is not a military trained for counterinsurgency," said Mosharraf Zaidi, a political analyst. "People have been waiting for Pakistan's 9/11 moment," Zaidi added. "But this isn't America." "You can't possibly think the rest of the country, particularly the urban areas, is going to fall like a house of cards," Zaidi said. "Ultimately I think the country will overcome this. But it's going to get worse first." (He certainly is an optimist!)

According to reports Jihadis once associated with the Harkat-e-Jihad-i-Islami and the Lashkar-e-Taiba - groups with strong roots to terror acts in Kashmir after the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, stayed neutral, only joining the Taliban's fight against foreign forces in Afghanistan in 2004, helping with training and logistics. During the Pakistani military's operations in the tribal areas over the past few years, they kept out of the fight. In the current critical phase of the "war on terror", for the first time these militants are fully operational and are turning their attention to operations inside Pakistan. The top military brains at General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, the garrison city twinned with the capital Islamabad, are acutely aware of what these highly trained and dedicated militants are capable of: they cut their teeth in operations inside India and in Kashmir.

The point to be noted is that there appeared to be a tacit agreement that the US (and UK) would keep the Kashmir pot boiling (remember the recent uncouth statement in India by British Foreign Secretary David Miliband that to avoid terrorist attacks like 26/11 India must resolve the Kashmir issue. Such regular statements provide oxygen to terrorists' cause and encourage them. It is as if India stated that terror attacks in north Ireland would cease if London gave in to the demands of Irish Republican Army)

In return the terror groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba have kept generally silent about the atrocities in Occupied Palestine and genocide in Gaza by Israelis with full US support and illegal invasion and brutal occupation of Iraq in which over a million Iraqis have died. So much for the solidarity between members of Islamic Ummah of Palestine, Iraq and disgruntled Kashmir elements being trained, equipped and financed by Pakistan for its own ends, when it is quite clear that Islamabad has no intention of agreeing to an independent Kashmir. Why go far? Just look at the terrible conditions in Pak occupied Kashmir ruled from the interior ministry of Pakistan.

Kashmiris are being exploited like the Kurds of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria in history by neighboring states and outside powers like Britain, Russia and now USA.

Steve Coll writes in Ghost Wars : 'Every Pakistani general, liberal or religious, believed in the jihadists by 1999, not from personal Islamic conviction, in most cases, but because the jihadists had proved themselves over many years as the one force able to frighten, flummox, and bog down the Hindu-dominated Indian army. About a dozen Indian divisions had been tied up in Kashmir during the late 1990s to suppress a few thousand well-trained, paradise-seeking guerrillas. What more could Pakistan ask.'

About the Islamisation of Pakistan army specially ISI under Zia ul Haq, in the history of the Pakistani army, Shuja Nawaz, describes the "strange non-military atmosphere" in the ISI in the early 1990s at the end of the reign of one of the most overtly Islamist directors of the agency, the Zia-appointed Lieutenant General Javed Nasir. When his successor turned up to take over, he found that "the corridors were filled with bearded civilians in shalwar kameez," the pajama-like traditional dress, "many of them with their shalwar hitched up above the ankle, a signature practice of the [ultra-orthodox] Tablighi Jamaat to which Nasir belonged." He was shown a strong room that once had "currency stacked to the ceiling" but was now empty as adventurist ISI officers had taken "suitcases filled with cash" to the field, including to the newly independent Central Asian republics, ostensibly to set up safe houses and operations there in support of Islamic causes. There were no accounts or any receipts to these money transfers....Most officers were absent from their offices for extended periods, often away for "prayers."

'Before the partition of British India in 1947, Punjab was seen as a loyal colony of the British and their recruits fought against the Afghans. After partition, Punjabis were seen as usurpers who divided the Pashtun tribes in the name of a new country called Pakistan. To many Afghans, Punjabis are opportunists and while they claim to be Muslims, their culture is a blend of Hinduism and Sikhism,' So wrote Saleem Sahzad in Asia Times last November. (It is only the counterpart Punjabi speaking Hindus in India who express such touching faith in Pakistan's democracy and indulge in border candle lighting .They also enjoy each others' chicken tikka kebak and beer laced hospitality during not so secret channels of diplomacy during which they visit their ancestral homes. But it is the Washington pied piper who plays the tune.)

The author remembers an Afghan diplomat, related to the ruling dynasty and the Jihadis telling him that Punjabi Pakistanis were trying to teach Afghans how to fight when they had never fought themselves and were ruled mostly by outsiders. A Persian descent diplomat joked that after the heroic resistance of King Porus against Alexander of Macedonia, the area between Peshawar and Panipat remained porous for invaders to come in from north west and Sikh troops and British army to march through from east to west.

US Reaction

'The Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and the extremists," US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told the US Congress. Richard Holbrooke, Barack Obama's special representative, admitted last week in an interview that more attention was now focused on Pakistan than on the war in Afghanistan.

'We're certainly moving closer to the tipping point' where Pakistan could be overtaken by the extremists according to Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Some analysts suggest Islamabad is waiting for the Jihadis to over-reach ' when it is clear to the public that they cannot be trusted or reasoned with, Islamabad will send the army to crush them. But others detect a lack of political will, and perhaps, a failure of nerve in confronting groups created by Pak Army and ISI, that have served Pakistan's plans well in the past in Afghanistan and against India and Kashmir.

Historical Background and Parallels

Of the oldest of the three revealed religions, Judaism's only state since ancient times, Israel, founded on leftist tenets has since morphed into a rule by Zionist-Military oligarchy. Christians after centuries of warfare in Europe managed to create secular polities which are still underpinned if not haunted by sectional religious ideologies. In the last of 'the Book' based polity Islam, the lines between the Mir and the Pir, the temporal ruler and spiritual ruler still remain blurred, contested and changing.

After the 1979 revolution in Iran, Shias created the ideal but mythical office of Imam in the person of Ruhoallah Khomeini. The status of the Imam was evolved into the doctrines of intercession and infallibility, i.e., of the faqih/mutjahid. But the Iranians have since found that a system based on the concepts of 7th century AD was inadequate to confront and solve the problems of 21st century. Nevertheless, like the first Imam Ali, Iran is ruled by the supreme religious leader, Ali Khameini, who incidentally is Azeri Turk. The cement keeping Iran united now is its common heritage and Islam. In Syria the ruling Shia Alewite elite, 12% of the population has been staunchly secular under the Assads since four decades. In Lebanon the Hezbollah, which coordinates with some secular strands, combines in Hassan Nasrallah, the powers of both a military and spiritual leader. To understand the evolving situation around Pakistan and Afghanistan we might look at some what similar situations in Islamic history.

Prophet Mohammad was both the religious leader and military commander. But the Arab Caliphs lost out on power by 10th century to the Turkish slaves from central Asia who formed the core of their fighting forces. The Turks raised the minor title of Sultan to a high rank who literally became a protector of the Caliph, left with only spiritual powers. Even this role was seized by the Ottoman Sultans ruling from Istanbul.

After the defeat of Byzantines near lake Van in 11th century, the Seljuk hordes established a Rumi Calphate at Konya in the centre of modern day Turkey. But they had to brutally suppress religious leaders' rebellions many times .To keep out the energetic soldiers and freelance militias instigated by fanatic religious leaders, Konya sent them out as Ghazis to harass neighboring Christian Byzantine territories. Out of these freebooters emerged a small band led by Ertugrul, whose small principality was expanded by his son Osman (Othman) and descendents into Europe right up to the gates of Vienna and along South Mediterranean up to Morocco and east up to Iran border and Oman on the Indian ocean.

Rise and Fall of Janissaries in Ottoman Empire

As Iran became a barrier to recruitment of non-Muslim Turks from central Asia, a practice which the Arabs had followed, the Ottoman emperors, who succeeded the Seljuk Turks in Anatolia as Turkey was then known, finally conquered the Byzantine empire and made Constantinople, its capital, their own Istanbul. They then started recruiting Christian young boys mostly from Balkans but even from Anatolia for its armed forces and top civil service cadre known as 'Devshirme'.

Beginning with the forced recruitment from Christian prisoners taken as booty after the battle, the system progressively developed into a privileged and influential warrior force that converted young Christian boys to Islam and instructed them in the Turkish martial arts. Unlike feudal levies Janissaries owed loyalty to the Sultan only. Regimented training and strong moral codes transformed the Janissaries into more than an impressive military force, a political entity of such unchecked power (shades of ISI) that they unwittingly contributed to the very downfall of the empire itself. The Janissaries were an important factor in the military expansion of the Ottoman Empire ranging from the 1453 capture of Constantinople to the battles against the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.

The next couple of centuries saw the growth of the power of the Ottomans, but a succession of uprisings by Janissaries resulted in more power flowing into their hands. The first Janissary revolt occurred in 1449 and served as a model for many later revolts, each of which brought them more power and pelf. The Janissaries reached such an enviable state of influence by the late 1600s that the Ottoman bureaucracy was effectively held hostage to their whims and demands. A mutiny led to change in the policy of the politicians. Eventually, the Janissaries started to engage in successful coups to topple even a Sultan who was not receptive to their specific desires. They put their own self-interests first and placed obstacles in the path of modernizing the army.

In 1807, the Janissaries revolted against Sultan Selim III, and replaced him with Mahmud II . Mahmud II finally decided that the Janissaries had to be decimated in order to preserve the empire. In the summer of 1826, when the Janissaries staged another uprising, the rest of the army and the people were ranged against them. The Janissary force finally faced either death or retreat and exile. The survivors were banished and their wealth taken over by the state.

Like the Konya Sultante the Pakistanis under its religious President Zia-ul-haq with financial support from US led West and Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states trained and sent Jihadis and militants aka modern day Ghazis into Afghanistan in 1980s, who forced the Soviets exit from Afghanistan. Eventually the Communist edifice under mined by Slav nationalism and Orthodox Christianity collapsed by the beginning of 1990s.

Would Pakistan Succeed in Destroying the Taliban!

A conglomerate of various militias, free booters, religious fanatics, nationalists and tribal chieftains classified as Al Qaeda, Taliban, Pakistani Taliban etc are somewhat like the Janissaries of the Ottoman empire, their most effective fighting force which terrorized European Christians and helped extend the Ottoman empire into Europe. But soon instead of terrorizing the enemies of the Ottomans, they threatened the Sultans. Finally the Janissaries had to be destroyed. Would Pakistan be able to do the same i.e. destroy the Taliban.

The tensions between the ruler, the clerics and religious warriors i.e. Mirs and Pirs have still not been separated in Islamic world .It is in reverse gear even in modern Turkey, the only secular Muslim nation, with the ascendancy of the ruling religious AK Party with billions of Saudi investment in Turkey and direct gifts to the party. Support of Saudi finances to Madarsas and mosques remains the major obstacle in the modernization of education and Islamic societies.

Democracy in Pakistan

Throughout the Cold War, the so-called democracy in Pakistan was basically a Western media myth to put its ally on a par with India. Utterances by Pakistan prime ministers against India made good copy in Western media. Barring perhaps Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (1972-77), after the military had been totally discredited in 1971 following the liberation of Bangladesh, the Pakistan armed forces have been de jure or de facto rulers of the country. In the 11 years between General Zia's death in 1988 and Musharraf's takeover, Benazir Bhutto and Sharif were eased in and out of power whenever they tried to interfere with the military's autonomy, or their control of nuclear arms, or the policy on Kashmir and foreign affairs. Constantly squabbling the politicians nevertheless amassed huge fortunes by corrupt means. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif had the opportunity and political support to lay the foundations for democracy, but instead they chose despotic ways to steamroller the institutions that provided the checks and balances in the state. In spite of dire situation in Pakistan, Zardari, assassinated Benazir's spouse, who became President by hoodwinking Nawaz Sharif, instead of jointly stabilizing the political and security situation in Pakistan, continue to play petty political games. This highlights the inability of Pakistani political elite to accept the give and take of a democratic system and administration.

For all the good copy that Benazir provided the Western media, she was perhaps one of the most incompetent administrators in Pakistan's history, with her husband, "Mr. 10 percent" Ali Zardari, making it worse. She played a seminal role in 1996 in promoting the stranglehold in Pakistan of the Jamaat-i-Islami and fundamentalist groups, now threatening Pakistan (and Afghanistan.) These groups have umbilical relationship with ISI, with many friendly elements deeply entrenched in ISI and the Pakistan armed forces and the establishment. Tacitly approved by the US and with support from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, Pakistan created the Taliban to provide 'stability and security' in Afghanistan in 1990s so that US oil giant UNOCAL could lay pipelines from Central Asia to South Asia and beyond. The Taliban cadre is composed of madarsa pupils, mostly orphans of 3 decades of violence in Afghanistan and children of poor people. Somewhat like the forced 'orphan' Janissaries.

Pakistan Polity

In any case, unlike India, Pakistan began with weak grassroots political organizations, with the British-era civil servants strengthening the bureaucracy's control over the polity and decision-making. Subsequently, the bureaucracy called for the military's help, but soon the tail was wagging the dog. In the first seven years of Pakistan's existence, nine provincial governments were dismissed. From 1951 to 1958 there was only one army commander in chief, two governor generals, but seven prime ministers.

While the politicians had wanted to further strengthen relations with the British, the erstwhile rulers, General Ayub Khan ' encouraged by Washington ' formed closer cooperation with the Pentagon. And in 1958 General Ayub Khan took over power, beginning the military's stranglehold on Pakistan. A mere colonel at partition in 1947, with experience mostly of staff jobs, Ayub Khan became a general after only four years. Later, he promoted himself to field marshal. He eased out officers who did not fit into the Anglo-Saxon scheme of using Pakistan's strategic position against the evolving Cold War confrontation with the communist block.

General Zia ul-Haq was a cunning schemer, veritably a mullah in uniform with delusions of spreading Islam in central Asia with Islamabad as the fulcrum. While posted in Amman, Zia helped plan the military operations, which expelled Yasser Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization from Jordan in the 1970s. But he is more remembered for having prayed at all the mosques of Amman, if not in the whole of Jordan. He seduced the north Indian media with lavish praise and chicken and tikka kebabs meals. While planning Operation Topaz, which fueled insurgency in Kashmir in 1989, he hoodwinked Indians with his goodwill visits to promote cricket. His Islamization of the country made the situation for women and minorities untenable, while the judicial killing of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1977 turned General Zia into a pariah. But the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan made him a US darling, restoring and strengthening the Pakistan military's links with the Pentagon. This made the Pakistani military and the ISI's hold pervasive, omnipotent, omniscient and ominous in Pakistan.

This defense alliance, the seeds of which were planted by Ayub Khan, and the symbiotic relationship between the ISI and the CIA midwifed under General Zia, cannot be dismantled or disentangled. Now it is like a marriage gone sour with Washington wanting Islamabad to toe its orders including Pak military killing Jihadis /terrorists, its own children, who against Soviet troops in 1980s were hailed as Ghazis. Pakistan ISI and military, the real rulers of Pakistan have based their power on anti-India policy. Their policy of over-reach and control of Afghanistan is both for strategic depth and to erode the existential reality of the Durand line. But the non-acceptance of the Durand line by Pushtoons makes the very concept of Pakistan's territorial integrity a nightmare.

Washington; Pakistan's External Constituency

It is an accepted truism that three As; Allah, Army and America form the most important pillars of the state of Pakistan. China is equally vital for Pakistan's survival based on Beijing's strategic objectives of tying India down and looking for a new energy 'silk route ' for western China's access to the Gulf by land and strategic outflanking of India via Gwadur port in Baluchistan .

Following the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan and subsequent collapse of USSR, a triumphant Washington left the monster of Islamic fundamentalism intact in Afghanistan and Pakistan, partly because US administrations with corporate personnel have short term annual balance sheets objectives.They let the Jihadis to fester even leaving with them Stinger missiles. In any case the Jihadis would only create problems in Russia and its near abroad, China's Xinjiang province and India. Who cares! America's 's rulers began dreaming of a New American Century with Washington as the New Rome of 3rd Millennia with plans to control world's energy and other resources and strategic spaces.

At a time when Indian economy started perking up after 1991 and US corporate interests looked at India for investment and for laying pipe lines to transfer energy from central Asia to India and beyond to Japan, Pakistani leaders complained of neglect by its ally which had used Pakistan like a French letter to enter Afghanistan and then discarded it.

The Al Qaeda World View

Throughout its colonial era to protect its interests the British encouraged Islam and its extremist strains to divide and browbeat national and socialist movements in Asia, Middle East and elsewhere. London encouraged and helped Jinnah in his dream of Pakistan, so that a weak Pakistan in alliance would keep the Russians away from the oil wells in the Gulf region dominated by the Europeans. This policy was appropriated by the new leading western power USA after WWII. Thus the creation of the monster of Islamic fundamentalism was a natural Western gambit to tire out and unravel USSR. Supporting the Jihad in Afghanistan was a Faustian pact between the Christian Crusaders led by America and Muslim Wahibis/Salafis.

After the Soviet Union collapse, the Islamic fanatics, believing they had defeated the super power USSR, put into operation their plans against US led Christian Satans. It included firstly to expel US troops from the sacred soil of Arabia, then remove non Salafi rulers from Muslim Ummah such as in Egypt and others, even Saudi Arabia and liberate Muslims from non-Muslim yoke in India and finally create Islamic Caliphates ruled by religious tenets as perceived by them e.g. Taliban rule in Afghanistan up to 2001 and in Swat now. This Jihad against USA began with attacks on US diplomatic missions in east Africa, inside USA and finally culminated in the 9/11 stunning attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, symbols of US economic and military might.

We will not go into the suspicions that US organized 9/11 or let it happen. But Washington now went in to implement Neo-con driven agenda of making US the hyper power brooking no resistance. It first bombed Afghanistan to acquire bases there and in nearby Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan ostensibly for its war on Taliban and Al Qaeda, but to occupy Russia's strategic underbelly. Still driven by hubris and backed by Tony Blair's UK, USA then invaded Iraq against the UN charter and the wishes of majority of its members on the basis of allegations which appeared even then to be cooked up to any intelligent observer. But Washington needed Islamabad to protect itself from a backlash of its earlier Afghan policies of creating the monster of terrorism and acquire bases in Pakistan and support from an unwilling ally in Islamabad. US threatened to bomb Pakistan to middle ages if Islamabad did not comply with its firman, written and publicly aired by Pakistan ruler Gen Parvez Musharraf as also narrated in his autobiography. (By 2006 Gen Musharraf knew his rule was to end and as per US custom, a new proxy ruler would be installed in Islamabad and after Benazir's assassination her widower Asaf Ali Zardari took over.)

After 11 September, Washington also desperately wanted to stop Pakistan's nuclear bombs or material from falling into Jihadi hands. US spokesmen have stated from time to time that Pak nukes are in safe custody. But according to one version, Gen Musharraf, realized that the nukes were Pakistan's crown jewels, a leverage against Indian conventional military superiority and a handle to threaten and blackmail one and all. It was the only positive outcome of Islamabad being exploited for West's war in Afghanistan which resulted in the spread of narcotics use and Kalashnikov culture in Pakistan. It is said that parts of the nuke systems were removed to Chitral near the Chinese border and if threatened, Chinese troops across the border would move in and take them away. Who knows the truth!

Military in Politics in Pakistan and Turkey

Military has been a major force both in Pakistan and Turkey. I have kept an eye on Turkey since 40 years, with ten years spent in Ankara in two diplomatic tenures. An Indian diplomat has to live with and understand Pakistan, an anti-India profession created by the perfidious Albion. Situated east and west of Iran, now in opposition to the policies of yesterday's declining hyper power USA, Pakistan and Turkey, Washington's non-NATO and NATO allies respectively, are undergoing fundamental changes which would have ramifications not only for the region but alter the world's political and strategic calculus. Specially in Pakistan. If Turkey is situated at the crossroads of a Europe, Central Asia, Middle East and Africa, and influenced by the cross currents, then Pakistan connects South Asia to Central Asia and Middle East, and central Asia and China to the energy rich Middle East in the Gulf waters.

Unlike civilian controlled armed forces in conventional democracies, in both these countries the military's role is embedded in the polity with dominance in decision making. In Turkey the military under the leadership of Kemal Ataturk, first fought a dogged war to protect the nation against Western led invasion and occupation after the collapse of the Ottoman empire and then helped create a secular republic after abolishing the office of the Sultan and the Caliphate in 1923.

Musharraf's Turkish Connection and Ataturk as a Model

At his very first press conference soon after taking over in October,1999 as Pakistan's chief executive, General Musharraf spotted some journalists from Turkey. Speaking in fluent Turkish, Musharraf told them that he was a great admirer of Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic and its first president. "As a model, Kemal Ataturk did a great deal for Turkey. I have his biography. We will see what I can do for Pakistan. " Not only is he more at home with Turkish than Pakistan's national language, Urdu, Musharraf also admires Turkey's generals and the country's political model, having spent his most impressionable school years in early 1950s in Ankara, where his father was posted as a junior diplomat. Ataturk's legend of forging a new, vibrant, modern and secular Turkey out of the ashes of the decaying deadwood of the Ottoman Empire left an indelible mark on young Pervez, as evidenced by his remarks above and his subsequent actions as the leader of Pakistan.

However, following his statements lauding Ataturk, the Jamaat-i-Islami, the largest of Pakistan's religious parties, immediately expressed its opposition to the secular ideology of Kemalism. As a result, Musharraf then also highlighted the aborted vision for Pakistan of Qaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the country's founding father and its first leader after independence in 1947.

At best Musharraf can be said to have succeeded in emulating his publicly undeclared model Gen Evren and that too not that well. There are some similarities with Ataturk. Delhi-born Musharraf's family comes from east Uttar Pradesh (India). Blue-eyed Ataturk was born in Salonika (Greece) and his family came from Macedonia. Ataturk was able to rally the world war-weary Turks, whose land had been occupied by foreigners. At first he battled the Ottoman Sultan's forces sent to kill him and then vanquished friend turned foe rebel Ethem and his ragtag Green army, which had helped fight off invading Greeks who had almost reached Ankara. This was something like the various jihadi forces and foot-loose groups that Musharraf faced. However, Ataturk ruthlessly crushed religious revolts led by feudal Kurdish tribal chiefs and others. And to fulfill his destiny, he even got rid of his earlier nationalist comrades, who were in favor of continuing with the Caliphate.

Musharraf, too, succeeded in sidelining many unreliable generals but not completely. Despite his belief in his avowed destiny, his proclaimed good luck in escaping many mishaps, he did not show the boldness and ruthlessness of Ataturk. September 11 and December 13, provided him with a golden opportunity to go the whole hog in the fight against the virus of fundamentalism and usher a new era in Pakistan on the lines of Ataturk's reforms. He would have got unstinted support from US led West, India and others.

Ataturk had boldly and ruthlessly carried out westernizing and modernizing reforms against religious obscurantism and dogma and forged the remnants of the Ottoman Empire with a 99 percent Muslim population into a secular republic in the 1920s. But he had kept his external ambitions in check, he did not claim former Ottoman provinces lost in World War I, and had concentrated on building a new Turkey from the bottom up.

Musharraf, a child of his times, had to step down, after September 11, from the fundamentalist tiger he was riding and had helped nurture. But he was not fully in command on the home front, with attempts to assassinate him and suicide bombers having a run of the country. (They are now only 100 kms away from Islamabad). He did tighten up from time to time, with some arrests of ranking Al-Qaeda members and others to please USA. But Musharraf's childhood Ataturk-inspired dream was not realized. Perhaps he is not ruthless enough, determined and single minded like Ataturk.

Some people say that Musharraf did make some attempts, including beginning a dialogue with India, which made considerable progress. Maybe there were just too many cards stacked against him external and internal. By 2006 he realized that his time was up so he wrote his biography and soon enough there was pressure from USA and internally, encouraged by outside powers for a change of regime in Pakistan. USA favored Benazir Bhutto, while another financier Saudi Arabia's choice was Nawaz Sharif, but with luck with some maneuvering, the crown now sits on Zardari head.

Conclusion

The future of Pak-Af depends on how Afghanistan shapes up which has been divided since 1980s. The kingdom was created in the 19th century at the end of the Great Game as a buffer to keep the Russian and British empires from getting onto each others corns. In spite of many attempts, the British had failed to subdue the Afghan tribes and had got a bloody nose in the bargain.

Since then the two empires, the British in South Asia and the Russian/Soviet in central Asia have disappeared and divided.Thus the raison d'etre of the Kingdom remaining united has disappeared. The break up of Afghanistan composed of warring Pushtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and others would create pressures on the already eroded Durand line, whose so called British enforced legality ended in 1993. Dominated by Punjabi speaking elite with leavening of Pushtuns, Pakistan has remained feudal in social makeup and has failed to create even a territory based national identity. The most dangerous possibility is a stand off and war between the Jihadis/terrorists and the Military with Punjabi-Pathan mix with the latter's unity being unraveled, unraveling the state itself.

West may not mind the break up of Afghanistan and even of Pakistan if the new states are beholden to it and help neutralize the Chinese objectives of direct land access from west China via Pakistan to the Gulf. This explains Chinese investments in Baluchistan and its Gwadar port, next door to the Gulf of Hormuz, the Middle East energy exit point. However the likely economic collapse of UK and USA weakens their hand. Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and India would play more important role than the 2002 agreement in shaping what happens in Afghanistan. But finally it is the people of the lands who would be the deciders.

What happens in Afghanistan and Pakistan will have serious ramifications for India too. The current Indian dispensation remains too beholden to Washington and has not kept up with Moscow and annoyed Tehran. At the moment the political elite is engrossed in the election exercise to renew its license to go back to its selfish ways .The public remains glued to Indian Premier League telecasts from South Africa where it is being played since the League and the elections would have strained the security setup in India, so brutally exposed of its ineffectiveness by 26/11 rape of Mumbai.

K Gajendra Singh, Indian ambassador (retired), served as ambassador to Turkey and Azerbaijan from August 1992 to April 1996. Prior to that, he served terms as ambassador to Jordan, Romania and Senegal. He is currently chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies. Copyright with the author. E-mail-kgsingh@yahoo.com.

3-May-2009
More by :  K. Gajendra Singh
 
Views: 1807
Share This Page
Post a Comment
Bookmark and Share
Name*
Email ID*  (will not be published)
Comment
Verification Code*
P6E32
Please fill the above code for verification.

    

 
 
Top | Analysis



Solitude and other poems by Rajender Krishan
 


    A Bystander's Diary     Analysis     Architecture     Astrology     Ayurveda     Book Reviews
    Buddhism     Business     Cartoons     CC++     Cinema     Computing Articles
    Culture     Dances     Education     Environment     Family Matters     Festivals
    Flash     Ghalib's Corner     Going Inner     Health     Hinduism     History
    Humor     Individuality     Internet Security     Java     Linux     Literary Shelf
    Love Letters     Memoirs     Musings     My Word     Networking     Opinion
    Parenting     People     Perspective     Photo Essays     Places     PlainSpeak
    Quotes     Ramblings     Random Thoughts     Recipes     Sikhism     Society
    Spirituality     Stories     Teens     Travelogues     Vastu     Vithika
    Women     Workshop
RSS Feed RSS Feed Home | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Site Map
No part of this Internet site may be reproduced without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
Developed and Programmed by ekant solutions