Issues on the
Periphery
Dr Shireen M. Mazari
It is now over three weeks since
the earthquake happened, but the enormity of the
devastation and suffering continues to overwhelm
us. As in any situation involving the state, critics
will also abound, but by and large there is a spirit
of public-private cooperation that has risen above
normal bureaucratic hurdles. The system is not perfect
but even the foreign NGOs involved in the relief
operations are prepared to acknowledge the work
being done by the state in difficult and trying
circumstances. Of course, the contribution of Pakistani
civil society has been nothing short of amazing.
As for the critics, they are also making a valuable
contribution by alerting one to failings that need
rectification.
However, there are two groups of critics whose line
of critique is nothing short of absurd. Ironically,
while they would see themselves as having nothing
in common, their arguments do seem to have an unnerving
similarity. First, there are those who have been
crying hoarse about this tragedy being the wrath
of God for the Pakistani state's evil ways! Though
why God would want to punish the innocent, especially
children, is never quite explained. This group of
critics also saw Hurricane Katrina in the same vein,
although here too it was the poor black population
that suffered the major brunt. In any event, while
our state may not be perfect, one cannot find anything
particularly evil that is peculiar to us alone to
have made God punish especially the innocent and
the underprivileged amongst us.
The second group of critics is part of our so-called
"liberal, enlightened and secular" elite.
They have chosen to explain that the reason the
international community has not responded as it
was expected to, in terms of the flash appeal made
by the UN, is either because we are one of the most
corrupt countries of the world or because we are
perceived to be linked with extremism or, even worse,
a combination of both. That is why, according to
them, unlike the massive outpouring of international
assistance for the tsunami, there has been a lukewarm
response towards Pakistan. This again is hardly
a rational argument given that human suffering normally
gets a human response beyond the pale of politics.
We saw that even at the time of the earthquake in
Bam in Iran. But such explanations do comfort the
politically disgruntled souls, even at a time of
national tragedy.
So how does one explain the difference in international
response in terms of the tsunami and the October
8 earthquake? First, we should accept that there
has been a tremendous response to earthquake relief,
from many members of the international community,
including Muslim states, and many Western and Asian
states, as well as international NGOs and the UN.
But some states have shown a lack of interest so
far -- especially Australia which used to be so
eager to sell us sick sheep and bad wheat -- while
others have been a little niggardly. But we should
be grateful for whatever has come and rely increasingly
on our own efforts.
Why was it different for the tsunami? Primarily
because the disaster went live on the international
media as a result of amateur footage of the event
as it was unfolding -- so the impact was immediate.
Second, the number of foreign, especially Western
tourists, who lost their lives, also impacted countries
well beyond the disaster-stricken states. People
in Europe felt the loss personally and many others
had associations with the tourist resorts destroyed
by the tsunami. So these factors galvanized the
rich nations into giving a major response. As for
the US, it saw the disaster in Indonesia, especially,
as a means of redeeming its adverse image in the
largest Muslim state. So let us not indulge in irrational
self-flagellation merely because we want to indulge
in diatribes against the state. There are more rational
grounds on which to indulge in this activity.
At the end of the day, what is the difference between
those offering the explanation of wrath of God and
those offering the wrath of mankind explanation,
except that one offers an explanation for why the
disaster happened in terms of our spiritual sins
and the other seeks to explain why mankind has not
responded adequately by laying the blame on our
temporal shortcomings.
Interestingly, these days God seems to dominate
the thinking of many political leaders across the
globe -- far beyond the Muslim World -- who all
choose to explain their irrational actions in terms
of being influenced by the Almighty. President Bush
claims that God told him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
And who would have thought that India's leaders,
who never tire of proudly claiming their secular
ideology, would also resort to the Hindu religion
to explain why its leadership did a total flip at
the IAEA and voted for the EU-sponsored resolution
against Iran! But that is how Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh sought to explain this erratic behavior and
pacify the Left: "We have given diplomacy time
to find a way out. The Gita says one has to do one's
duty unmindful of the consequences." Perhaps
the born-again factor is also an element in the
new Bush-Singh rapport!
Coming back to the earthquake, there is another
issue that has also come to the fore in its aftermath
-- that of the Pakistan-India relationship. The
LoC opening has encouraged those who feel this is
the opportunity for Pakistan to unilaterally alter
the paradigm of its India relationship. An example
that is being cited is the case of Turkey which
supposedly altered its relations with Greece after
the latter sent aid for the Turkish earthquake victims
of 1999. This supposedly led to a new dynamic emerging
on the Cyprus issue, although how one can discount
the Turkish quest for EU membership as a major factor
is inexplicable. In any event, at the end of the
day, the Turkish Cyprus issue remains unresolved,
and a major responsibility for that lies on the
EU itself.
So unilateral altering of paradigms does not get
the desired results. In the Pakistan-India case,
we are already witnessing India's politicking against
Pakistan during this time of national tragedy. We
saw India moving against Pakistan at the IAEA last
week and now we have seen the Indian leadership
attempting to drag Pakistan into the Delhi bombings,
as well as the Indian media referring to one of
the Red Fort attackers as Pakistani despite no proof
of this having been established. Yet none other
than India's former foreign secretary, Muchkun Dubey
told the BBC, on October 31, that of "none
of those who have been sentenced it has been said
that he is a Pakistani citizen. In the Supreme Court
judgment the involvement of Pakistan has not been
mentioned anywhere." So what is the Indian
media up to? We should not be surprised to find
the Indians using this death sentence to work out
a deal for RAW's Sarabjit Singh.
The point here is that Pakistan's tragedy is being
used for point scoring by India rather than using
it to truly seek a new framework for relationship
with Pakistan. In such a situation, unilateral accommodations
will not lead to desirable conflict resolution.
(The writer is director general of the Institute
of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Courtesy The
News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
