Pakistan, Afghanistan and India

8/14/2019 Pakistan, Afghanistan and India

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pakistan-afghanistan-and-india 1/10

© Copyright and Translation Rights Reserved by Hamza Alavi – 14 Feb 2002 For

publication in: MIDDLE EAST REPORT -- March 2002 - – WWW.merip.org

Pakistan, Afghanistan and Indiaby

Hamza Alavi

Pakistan has been passing through extremely difficult times. It was bullied into supportingAmerica’s Afghan war, which was costly for it. That was followed by a dangerous militaryconfrontation with India, threatening a war that neither side wants. South Asians, who arecommitted to values of secular democracy, are faced with a paradox. A military ruler in Pakistanhas declared a war against Islamic fundamentalism and is, apparently, pursuing secular values.By contrast, the once proudly secular India has been taken over by extreme Hindufundamentalists. It was through the ballot box that they were brought into power. They havethreatened war against Pakistan. Secularism and democracy are at odds with each other.

Pakistan and Afghanistan

Islamic fundamentalism was fostered in the country in the 1980s by Pakistan’s military dictator,General Zia-ul Haq, who was recruited by Reagan to work with the CIA to mobilise Afghanwarlords to fight the Russians in the name of Islamic jihad. A jihadi culture was actively

promoted in Pakistan and Afghanistan with the help of US and Saudi money.Islamic jihadi groups, in both counties, were armed with sophisticated weapons (including e.g.Stinger SAM missiles) and trained by the CIA. US and Pakistan backed Afghan warlords, whohad helped to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan, now began to tear that country apart. Againstthat background the Afghan Taliban were helped into power by their Pakistani and US patrons.

Oil, Afghanistan and the Taliban

The interests of UNOCAL, a US oil company, have been at the heart of America’s Afghan policy.UNOCAL wants to lay oil and gas pipelines from Central Asia through Afghanistan to thePakistan coast, by-passing Iran. But warlord-dominated Afghanistan was too insecure for it to

proceed with its huge investments. Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto government was mobilised to takematters in hand. In 1994 Pakistan helped to organise the Taliban’s rise to power. The USgovernment too supported the Taliban, who had made much of their dislike of Iran and their determination to cut down poppy and drug production which had flourished under the warlords.Once the Taliban were installed in power, the US was happy to leave matters in the hands of Pakistan and UNOCAL, and it adopted a policy of masterly inactivity.

By late 1997 world opinion was outraged by news of the extremely oppressive policies of theTaliban, especially with regard to women. US feminist groups mounted pressure against bothUNOCAL and the Clinton administration, demanding a change in policy towards the Taliban.The women’s vote was crucial for Bill Clinton in the 1996 elections and he could not ignorewomen’s groups. The Taliban invited reprisals from the US also for providing a base for BinLaden, who had declared war against the US and the Saudis and was held responsible for the

bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998. Ironically, it took the petty



Monica Lewinsky affair, when Clinton needed a dramatic alternative focus for public attention,to precipitate a hurried, ill-planned and ineffective cruise missile attack on Afghan territory inAugust 1998, launched from American warships in the Persian Gulf. At that point UNOCAL feltthat it had to pull out of Afghanistan, at least formally and for the time being.

UNOCAL and the US continued ‘backroom contacts’ with the Taliban . Three years later theAmericans revisited the scene. Top secret contacts between the Bush administration andthe Taliban, in February 2001, were reported by two retired French Intelligence Officers (DailyTelegraph, London, November, 20, 2001) who wrote that ‘The Bush Administration was ‘willingto accept the Taliban regime despite charges of sponsoring terrorism’. The US, they reported,considered the Taliban as a ‘source of stability in Central Asia’. But, given the notoriousintransigence of the Taliban, the talks did not proceed smoothly. Bush warnedthe Taliban: ‘Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we bury you under a carpet of

bombs!’ He kept his promise.

The terrible and outrageous attacks of September Eleven, finally provided the Americans with an

opportunity to get rid of the Taliban and install in their place a new government with whom theyhoped they could do business. It appears, however, that the transitional government that wascobbled together at Bonn, made up of hostile rival warlords who came together temporarilyunder Karzai, himself a weak US nominee, is unlikely to offer a basis for the stable future thatthe US and UNOCAL are looking for in the new Afghanistan. Warlords are already back inaction in the countryside, defiant of the central authority.

Secularism vs. Islamic Fundamentalism in Pakistan

There was little of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan until the regime of the military dictator General Zia, who, with Saudi and CIA help, set about promoting Islamic fundamentalism with

fanatic zeal. A chain of Deeni Madaris (religious schools) soon proliferated throughout Pakistan.Given generous funding, the madaris recruited sons of pauperised peasants offering them free board and lodging and ‘religious education’. Their ‘education’ was designed to turn them intoreligious zealots. Some madaris also gave military training to their pupils, providing foot-soldiers for the Afghan Taliban , as well as for militant jihadi groups in Pakistan. The brainwashedminds of the pupils ( taliban) of the madaris were filled with utopian dreams about an ‘ Islamic ’society that they would create, in which there will be plenty and no one will be left in want. Theywere highly motivated to fight for their beliefs. Most leaders of the Afghan Taliban were productsof Pakistani (Deobandi i.e. Wahhabi) deeni madaris. They kept close links with their Pakistanimentors, notably the leaders of the two factions of the Pakistani Jamiat-e-Ulama-e-Islam.

More than 70 percent of the larger deeni madaris (with more than 40 pupils) belonged to the puritanical ‘Deobandi’ (Wahhabi) tradition. The Saudis funded them generously to foster anti-Shi’a and anti-Irani ideology. The Iranians responded in kind. But the number of Shi’a madaris numbered less than 4 per cent. The deeni madaris provided recruits for extremistsectarian groups of which most were heavily armed. Pakistan soon became an arena in whichMiddle Eastern ‘Muslim’ powers played out their rivalry by proxy. Sectarian violence reached ascale that Pakistan had never known before. The fabric of Pakistan’s civil society was being tornapart.



Religious leaders acquired new ambitions. They began to assert that Pakistan was created toestablish an Islamic state and it was they, therefore, who had the right to run the state of Pakistan.Post-Zia civilian governments (alternatively under the Pakistan Peoples Party and the MuslimLeague) continued to promote fundamentalist Islamic ideology, through schools (textbooks beingrewritten), Universities and the media. Most Pakistanis soon came to believe that it must be true

that Pakistan was created to establish an Islamic state. The fact, however, is that the Pakistanmovement had secular foundations. The All India Muslim League was not a religious movementat all. It was a party of Western educated professionals and the ‘ salariat’ i.e. those who aspired toget government jobs. They successfully resisted attempts by mullahs to gain influence in their Party.

Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, spelt out the secular creed of the Pakistan movement, andhis vision of the new state in his inaugural address to Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly. Speakingagainst the background of the long history of Hindu-Muslim conflict in India beforeindependence, he said that in Pakistan ‘Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to

be Muslims, not in the religious sense, for that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the

political sense, as citizens of the State’. Pakistan was to be a secular state. It was not until the1980s, under the regime of General Zia-ul Haq, that an extreme form of ‘Islamic’ ideology wasespoused and propagated by the state and ‘secularism’ was equated with apostasy.

Musharraf’s ‘Secularism’ ?

Armed jihadi groups who were patronised by the ‘democratic’ regime of Nawaz Shareef,dominated Pakistan’s civil society, when the 1998 army coup that brought General Musharraf into power, took place. Thanks to policies of General Zia, Islamic ideology permeated somesections of the army too. However, the dominant ideology in the army is a legacy from Britishcolonial rule. The colonial rulers promoted an ideology of professionalism among Indian officers

of the British Indian army, to insulate them from the appeal of nationalist movements. Thatideology entailed a belief in the moral superiority of the ‘professional’ army officer over ‘self-seeking politicians’ who exploited the illiterate masses. That ideology included a notion of ‘military honour’ and loyalty to one’s regiment. The ideology of professionalism, with itscontempt for politicians, has remained the dominant ideology of the Pakistan military officerscorps. This was only partly changed when Gen. Zia made a big effort to promote Islamicideology instead. The ‘professionals’, however, remained dominant.

In 1995 an army coup, to dislodge the professionals, was attempted by Islamic ideologicalfanatics, led by one Major General Abbasi. Their aim was to Islamise the army and Pakistan. Thecoup attempt failed. But it was a major shock to the professionals. That failed coup ‘reinforce[d]

the senior commanders’ concern with professional development’ (S. Cohen, ‘ The Pakistan Army’, 1998, p. 171) In the aftermath of that coup attempt many Islamist officers were weededout. But many, especially in senior positions, still remained. Musharraf and the ‘professionals’were faced with difficulty in contending with powerful Generals who are committed to Islamicideology.

In opposing religious fundamentalist tendencies in the army and society, Musharraf has invokedthe secular values of Jinnah. But Musharraf himself does not appear to be driven by any



ideology. He is a ‘professional’, a pragmatic and flexible man, who believes in the armed forces,as the sole repository of legitimate force in society and, indeed, the custodian of the nation. As a

pragmatic man, he has had no difficulty in abandoning one policy, supporting another, if that promises to be more profitable. It was easy for a pragmatist to turn around and climb the bandwagon of Bush’s war against terrorism. His earlier support for the Taliban, let it be said, was

not on grounds of Islamic ideology. The fact is that the capture of Kabul by the Taliban, which ineffect was a victory for Pakistan forces behind them, was the first ever victory of the Pakistanarmy in the field. Musharraf’s took pride, as a professional, in that victory. But soon it was clear to him that the Afghan Taliban was the wrong horse to back and he quickly and easily made theswitch to back the War Against Terrorism.

Soon after taking power Musharraf indicated the direction in which he wanted to go, bydeclaring that Kemal Atatürk, the great ‘Muslim’ secular soldier, was his personal hero! He madean unsuccessful move to modify Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy law, a legacy from Gen. Zia,which was being misused to persecute innocent people, especially Christians. That move was achallenge to Islamists still in the army. There was a loud and angry outcry. If that had been

merely an outcry from the public, Musharraf might not have cared. But resistance from withinthe army was another matter. The ‘professionals’ had not yet consolidated their influence in thearmy, which Musharraf was later able to do. Meanwhile, he had to retreat. Although he is nowquite firmly in power, it speaks much for the still lingering ideological influence from the Ziadays, that Musharraf has thought fit to declare that he will not make any attempt to repeal or modify any of the unjust and oppressive laws that were promulgated by Gen. Zia, in the name of ‘Islam’ which are still in force. It will take a long time to obliterate the Zia legacy of Islamicfundamentalism from the minds of the Pakistani public and, especially, the army.

The power of heavily armed jihadi groups was a matter of great concern to the ‘professionals’ inthe military establishment for reasons other than that of Islamic ideology. The heavily armed

Islamist groups were rival nodes of power vis-à-vis the army. This was anathema for the professionals like Musharraf. This was an issue of a challenge to the army’s monopoly of legitimate force in society. Jihadi groups, with their highly sophisticated weapons were a threatto the army itself.

In the summer of 2001 armed Islamist groups went on a sectarian killing spree throughout thecountry. There were targeted killings of Shi’a professionals, doctors (68 in Karachi alone),engineers, civil servants and teachers. It was not only the Shi’a who were killed. The Chief of therelatively moderate Sunni Tehrik in Karachi was killed by rival Deobandis (Wahhabis). Shi’agroups also retaliated, killing Sunnis. Iranian diplomats were assassinated by the Wahhabis. Thevictims of killings by religious zealots numbered hundreds. Government officials, includingsome senior police officers were among those killed. Judges were unwilling to try cases of sectarian killings (as well as blasphemy cases) out of fear. One senior judge was assassinated inhis office by gunmen because he had found a sectarian killer guilty of murder.

It was alleged (cf. Newsline June 2001) that intelligence agencies were involved in the sectarianmurders. Support for sectarian killers from within the state machinery was a challenge to thearmy professionals. This was a major contradiction at the heart of state power. Musharraf and histeam were in contention with those who sympathised with the religious extremists. That



contradiction had another dimension too. Although the professionals were in charge at the centre,religious ideologists were able to manipulate the corrupt and inefficient state apparatus in thelocalities where it mattered. Many activists of religious extremist groups were common criminalswho had close ties with local police and military officers. ( Newsline , September 2001). The writof the state ran very thin. The professionals had a difficult task ahead of them.

Soon Musharraf began to regain the initiative. The universal horror at the killings gave him anopening. He convened a meeting of the Ulama (at a ‘National Seerat Conference’) in June 2001,and roundly condemned them for their narrow and dogmatic conception of Islam. He asked themif Islam was about sectarian killings ! He warned them that they were not above the law. It was ahard hitting speech. He could not have said as much a year earlier. He was now more confident.That warning to religious leaders was followed by the banning (on 14 th August) of two of themost notorious sectarian terrorist groups, the Sunni Lashkar-e-Jhanghvi and the Shi’a Sipah-e-Muhammad. But it was only after Bush declared his global ‘War on Terrorism’, that Musharraf knew that he could now depend upon the US to back him (for until then the US had been hostileto him), He was therefore able to deal decisively with the army officers who were involved with

or supported religious zealots.

Many in Pakistan believe that Musharraf began to act against religious extremist groups only atthe behest of Americans, after Bush had declared war on terrorism. That is manifestly not thecase. Musharraf’s crackdown on armed religious extremist groups began not after September Eleven but well before that. However, we must also recognise that he was able to act decisivelyagainst Islamists in the army only after September, when he could count on US backing for hismoves against the fundamentalists. In the new situation, with American backing, Musharraf wasable to remove or sideline powerful Generals who had ‘Islamist’ leanings or involvement. Togive one example, amongst the several senior Generals who were compulsorily retired, was thevery ambitious and powerful Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmad, Director General of the notorious ISI.

His grip on power is illustrated by the fact that in the year 2000 Mahmud was able to preventMusharraf’s projected visit to Afghanistan where he had intended to persuade Mullah Omar toyield on the Osama bin Laden issue. Instead of that, Mahmud chose to go himself and gave thegreen light to the Afghan Taliban, instead of exerting pressure on them.

In opposition to the fundamentalists’ slogan of Islamic jihad (e.g. in Kashmir or Afghanistan)Musharraf has raised the counter slogan of ‘Pakistan First’. That has caught on. To justifydisarming or banning armed religious fundamentalist groups he has declared that the ‘Writ of theState Must be Restored’. By that he has clearly meant the writ of the army. For the time being the

professionals have got the upper hand. But main job has yet to begin. The effects of ideologicalconditioning spanning over two decades, both within the army and in civil society cannot beerased overnight. Moreover, it is not just a question of personal beliefs. Thanks to the legacy of Gen. Zia, fundamentalist Islamists are well entrenched in the bureaucracy, the judiciary and theeducational system, at all levels. Clearing the system of such well entrenched elements is a major

problem that has not yet been even addressed.

The problem is not only one of personnel and their beliefs. There is an even more urgent problemof doing away with Shariat Courts, that were created by Gen. Zia, to enforce ideologicallyinformed laws, rules and policies, pandering to extremely narrow fundamentalist interpretations



of Islam. Judges of Shariat Courts have virtually legislative powers, in the name of Islam, butthey are answerable to no one. For example one of the decisions of the Shariat Bench of theSupreme Court which has banned interest in all its formers. If implemented that would bring theeconomy to a standstill. All that the government has found courage to do is to buy time instead of

putting an end to such lunacy. What the Government needs to do is to abolish the Shariat

Courts, which are undemocratic. They encroach on the powers of democratic legislatures. Allsuch issues have yet to be properly debated and the government has yet to take a firm and principled stand on this.

The main job of re-education and, one would add, institutional restructuring, has yet to getunderway. Lt. Gen. (rtd.) Talat Masood (Dawn, January 26) reflected concerns about it amongstthe professionals of the military when he pointed out that ideological ‘reforming and recastingwill not be easy. … and is likely to be met with resistance from disaffected groups, even fromsome elements within the establishment (meaning the army H.A.) itself.’ Instead of boldly

moving forward, Musharraf has already started backtracking. We find new words in hisvocabulary such as ‘ultra-liberals’ to whom he will not give way. After their recent set-backs, thismust come as music to the ears of Islamic fundamentalists.

A cultural revolution is called for. Musharraf has said that he wants to transform Pakistan into a‘modern, moderate Muslim state’. If Musharraf and the military believe that a progressive andvibrant society can be created purely by orders from above, they will be sadly mistaken. What isneeded is free and open public debate and freedom of speech and expression that might allowcreative and courageous thought to flourish. For over half a century, since independence, aculture of conformity and censorship has been enforced. Old habits die had. There is an ingrainedfear of new ideas, not least among those who rule over the academic world and the media and the

police (vis-à-vis public meetings). The most determined opponents of any break from what they(rightly or wrongly) believe to be the officially approved dogma of the day, are the petty tyrantswho preside over our universities. They are not people who will encourage and promote new andchallenging ideas. What Pakistan needs is an intellectual environment that will breed new andcreative thought. There are already some signs of this. But we have a long way to go. Moreover,this will not flourish in a political vacuum. Nor will it be painless, achieved without a struggle.

Kashmir

The Kashmir issue has been the main obstacle in the way of better relations between Pakistanand India. It is time that both countries recognised that the future of Kashmir is for the Kashmiris

to decide. Since the beginning of the Kashmir intafada in 1989 there has been a growingrealisation of that in Pakistan. People of Pakistan support the cause of self-determination of theKashmiris very passionately. No Pakistani government can abandon that cause. Musharraf toohas affirmed that commitment, while condemning the way in which jihadi groups have goneabout their activities in Kashmir. He has made a distinction between ‘terrorism’ and nationalliberation struggles against an occupying power, justifying and supporting the struggle of theKashmiri people. But at the same time, he has categorically rejected any role for Pakistan

based jihadi groups in Kashmir. In 1989, when the Kashmiri intifada began, the then army chief,



General Aslam Beg set up the ISI’s Kashmir Cell which controlled and co-ordinated the activitiesof jihadi groups. Musharraf has closed it down. In criticising the role of Pakistan

based jihadi groups in Kashmir, he has said that they were trying to impose their own Taliban version of extremist Islam on the Kashmiris, which was alienating them. Secondly,he has accepted, realistically, that there is no military solution for the Kashmir issue. It has to be

a political struggle. What Pakistan must do, he says, is to give all political and diplomatic supportto the struggle for self-determination of the Kashmiri people and to try and secure internationalmediation and enforcement of UN resolutions on Kashmir. A. G. Bhatt, Chairman of the APHC,the 23 member All Parties Hurriyat Conference of Kashmir, has welcomed that declaration,saying that the time had come for the political process to take over.

India’s Threat of War

By mid-December 2002, Pakistan was faced with India’s threat of war, as a response toa jihadi terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13. The Indians instantly blamedPakistan’s ISI and two Pakistani jihadi groups, namely Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-

Taiba for the attack . As it happens, not long after that leaders and activists of thesetwo jihadi groups were arrested in Pakistan. It was (unconvincingly) claimed that this wasunconnected with the New Delhi attack. That attack is the last thing that the Musharraf government could have wanted. Pakistan had nothing to gain and much to lose by staging such adrama.

The scale of Indian troop mobilisation at the Pakistan border has been unprecedented.Washington Times (January 14) quoted US Intelligence sources saying that ’90 per cent of India’s military forces is now deployed (vis-à-vis Pakistan).’ India has a far bigger and better equipped army and much larger nuclear capacity than Pakistan. Its economy is much larger andstronger than that of the virtually bankrupt Pakistan. A war between the two nuclear South Asian

countries would be a most terrible disaster all round. Pakistan has few illusions about theultimate outcome of such a conflict. Musharraf has been appealing for talks and for the return of troops on both side of the border to peacetime positions. Analysts have stressed that a war wouldnot be a walk-over for India either. Whatever may the final outcome be, the Pakistan army has acapacity to inflict heavy and unacceptable damage in return. The last thing that either India or Pakistan should want is a war, whose repercussions for both countries would be devastating. For this writer, who has spent the best part of his life promoting friendship between India andPakistan, the way in which the present Hindu religious extremist BJP government of India hasdismissed every approach made by the Musharraf government (and by an anxious US) for a

peaceful settlement, is extremely sad – and very worrying.

Immediately after the jihadi attack on the Indian Parliament, Musharraf condemned itunreservedly. He offered to the Indian Government that Pakistan would be willing to take part in joint investigations to identify the culprits and bring them to book. That offer was turned down by India. Pakistan then asked the Indians, at least, to provide it with evidence that might enable itto act against those who were involved. That offer too was dismissed. Instead, the Indiangovernment demanded that about 20 persons whom it named in a list (consisting largely of Indian nationals) should be deported to India. Musharraf said that Pakistan had not given asylumto any Indian subjects. As for any Pakistanis in the list, no Pakistani national would be handed



over to another country. If action against any one was called for, that would be done in Pakistan,under law.

India should feel reassured by the measures taken by the Musharraf government against Pakistan based jihadi groups, some of whom were active in Kashmir .Musharraf spelt out in detail, his

government’s policy about religious fundamentalist and jihadi groups, in a keynote speech of January 12. Five Islamist and jihadi groups were banned. There were large scale arrests of religious fundamentalist leaders and activists, which were estimated at the time to number morethan 2000. Arms of all jihadi groups were ordered to be confiscated. That policy was generouslyacclaimed by leaders of India’s main opposition party, the Congress Party and its twoCommunist Parties. But the response from the ruling BJP party, predictably, was cool, once againrepeating the overworked mantra that they wanted ‘action, not words’. It took a three day visit of the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell who tried to persuade the Indians to ‘get real’ and softentheir line. At a joint press conference with him, India’s Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh expressedhis appreciation of Musharraf’s January 12 speech and said that India was ready to cooperatewith Pakistan in the fight against terrorism. But the very next day Interior Minister Advani was

back in form. While acknowledging that Musharraf’s speech was important, he repeated that‘Mere speech is not enough’. Indian troops would not withdraw until Pakistan handed over toIndia those whom he had named.

For his part Musharraf, referring to his own far reaching actions against religious extremistgroups, declared that ‘We will not allow anyone to sit on judgment (on us) … Whatever measures we are taking for eliminating terrorism and religious extremism are aimed at reformingour own society and not to appease anyone’. He was also conciliatory. ‘We need patience’, hesaid, ‘You have to realise that they are a 20 party alliance and often speak with different voices.It takes them time to arrive at an agreed position.’ He speculated, however, that the militaryconfrontation might not end until after the February elections. But, he added, ‘There will be no

war’.The present confrontation between India and Pakistan has occurred in very different conditionsfrom the past. In recent years, extremist ideology has overtaken India’s once proud secularism. Afundamentalist Hindutva ideology, which is both anti-Christian as well as anti-Muslim, hasgripped that country. Atrocities have been committed against both those minorities by fanatics,with impunity. Many in Pakistan feel that the Indian Prime Minister, Vajpayee, is not himself awar-monger. But he is under great pressure from his senior colleagues, especially Lal KrishnaAdvani, the extreme Hindu fundamentalist Minister of Interior, and George Fernandes, the ultrachauvinistic Minister of Defence. There is also much political pressure from Hindufundamentalists in the country to ‘teach Pakistan a lesson’. It is being suggested that Advani hasadopted an ultra hard-line position because he is making a bid to succeed the aging and ailingPrime Minister Vajpayee. If that is his ambition, he should know that given his extremefundamentalist views, he unlikely to be able to hold together a fractious alliance of 20 parties.

The hard line of India’s ruling BJP in the current military standoff with Pakistan, is beingattributed to the forthcoming elections (due in late February) in UP, India’s largest state. It is saidthat its results may decide the future of the ruling BJP party not only in that state but also in thecountry. Small wonder then that the government has pulled out all stops, including the dangerous



military confrontation with Pakistan. But, over and above local and transitory factors, there isone new long term factor that is shaping India’s global policies. That is its ambition to berecognised as a world power. As the largest economic and military regional power, India now hasambitions to extend further its power and influence in Asia, especially in the Middle East (for which it is promoting a new alliance with Israel !) and South East Asia. It has made a bid for a

permanent seat in the UN Security Council, for which Bush and Britain’s Blair have announcedtheir support. America too wants India to play a key role in its strategy for the Middle East andSouth East Asia and, not least, its policy to contain China.

In pursuit of its global ambitions India has been developing close ties with Israel, especially inthe field of military cooperation. Israel is to provide highly sophisticated military technology toIndia. In pursuit of these new ties, in November 2001 alone, three official Israeli delegationsvisited India, namely a Parliamentary delegation, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs delegation and,crucially, a high level Ministry of Defence delegation. These were followed by a three day visitin January of Shimon Peres, the Israeli foreign minister, to New Delhi. Israel is to provide stateof the art weapon systems and military technology to India. That includes the supply to India of

the Phalcon airborne early warning system, which in the past the US had refused to allow Israelto supply to third countries. India already has a massive military superiority over all itsneighbours. That raises the question what such huge investment in highly sophisticated militarytechnology is for. The declaration by Defence Minister George Fernandes, at the time of India’snuclear test in May 1998, may be a clue. He said that India’s nuclear bombs and delivery systemsare intended for deployment against China !

Military and Democracy in Pakistan

In Pakistan the military has exercised power, de facto, even when civilian governments have been in office. Successive ‘democratic’ leaders have depended on the army’s support and

approval to stay in office. The military has had a pervasive influence on the shaping of state policies. That was in effect acknowledged by Lt. General (rtd.) Talat Masood who has spoken of a ‘monumental failure of our past domestic and foreign policies in which, ironically , the militaryhas had a crucial role to play. ’ (DAWN, Jan 26, 2002). The army’s unshakeable grip over power was revealed when (the ultra right wing) Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made a bid to end theautonomy of the army by attempting to dismiss Musharraf and putting his own nominee in his

place. He was promptly removed by the coup, which was an institutional coup by the army to preserve its autonomy. Nawaz Shareef was much favoured by the US. That did not save himfrom being ousted. The US, angrily led international pressures on Pakistan to restore democracy.That Musharraf and the army has to promise to do.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had initially legitimated Musharraf’s coup has, followingextension of its first deadline, now laid down that the army should restore parliamentarygovernment by October 2002. Musharraf has agreed to do so. It is too early at the moment of writing, to see in what precise form that will be done. The fact that Musharraf has appointedhimself President of Pakistan (for ‘at least five years’) is not a good beginning. The constitutiontoo has to be reinstated but we do not know in what shape will that be done.



Elections have been promised, though the army has unconcealed contempt for politicians.Religious parties will not be a threat, for they will be nowhere in the picture. In the past theyhave not been able to take more that 2 per cent of the vote and they are unlikely to do better. Thetwo main political parties will not present much of a challenge either. The Muslim League has

been successfully fragmented and its rival, the Pakistan People’s Party, is demoralised with its

leader in exile. There is a political vacuum in the country. There are few signs that it will befilled soon. One of Musharraf’s Ministers has given up his Ministerial post to set up a new political party. Indications are that the new system will have two components, one of them rather lame. One part of the new system is likely to be based on local bodies, for which elections wereheld last year. That part of the set-up would be on the lines of Gen. Ayub Khan’s muchdiscredited ‘Basic Democracies’ which were ideally suited to control and manipulation by the

bureaucracy. The other component would be a moth-eaten national assembly, without significant powers, which would be held up for international acclaim, as an exemplar of army democracy.We have to wait and see how that goes.

Documents

Pakistan, Afghanistan and India