Reversing the Slide
By Dr Ghayur Ayub
London, Pakistan
The fire lit by Zulfiqar Mirza's fiery press conference primarily engulfed MOM. His father, Judge Mirza, once described him as unpredictable and perfunctory. The comments came when he failed to attend a dinner hosted by his wife Dr Fahmida Mirza for my wife and I in 1995. The honorable judge was my patient then.
The perfunctory approach of ZM put the MQM on the back foot and for ten days the party maintained an unbelievable silence. This helped to thaw the public's fear about the alleged brutal tactics of the MQM. Then, two tit-for-tat press conferences by Faisal Sabzwari and Mustafa Kamal and a uniquely styled three-hour presentation of Mr. Altaf Hussain rocked the unstable boat.
We all know that 9/11 changed the global politics by drawing a line between Muslim and non-Muslim worlds, converting anti-communist strategy into anti-Muslim strategy, changing the cold war into active war, making terrorism the slogan of the new war, linking terrorism with Islamic fundamentalism, changing the tactics of the war-game, and invigorating the divide between Muslim sects.
Quoting the example of Laurence of Arabia, some even call it rewriting the history of the Muslim world, splitting it yet again according to the present day requirements. Pakistan, being the only Muslim nuclear power, takes center stage in this change. Accordingly, it is believed the enemies of Pakistan want to break Pakistan as they balkanized Yugoslavia. Hence the fiery conference of Zulfiqar Mirza and uninhibited presentation of Altaf Hussain.
The most intriguing point in the two conferences was the allegation that America has planned to disintegrate Pakistan. It was ZM who revealed it first, alleging that Altaf Hussain had supported it. AH confirmed it by showing a map of the disintegrated Pakistan, but dissociated himself from it. The map had been in cyberspace for a long time. Azam Hoti showed it to me in 2001. Irrespective of why this allegation was echoed at the present juncture let us assess the countries which could be adversely affected by the country’s disintegration. The list includes America, India, Afghanistan, Iran, China, Russia, and Central Asian States.
The US:
When Kabul was taken over by foreign forces, a triumphant Bush announced the liberation of Afghanistan. In reality, the fall of the Taliban government was the beginning of a guerilla war. A war which America, ten years later, is trying to bring to an honorable end. Though the war has removed OBL from the scene and weakened Al-Qaeda, it still has turned the Taliban a stronger force, damaging America both militarily and economically. America blames the Pakhtun stronghold of eastern Afghanistan and adjoining FATA in Pakistan for all the setbacks, fearing a new Vietnam in the making. Experts like General (rtd) Hamid Gul foresee a defeat for America in this war.
To avoid such an end, the Americans have been seriously thinking of bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table - hence letting Qatar open an office for the purpose. It was for this very reason that a timeframe for troop withdrawal from July 2011 was announced by Obama in November 2009. The date has been changed twice, extended first to 2014 and later to 2024. America knows that a stable Afghanistan is mandatory before its fighting forces leave the country to see its plans fully or partly achieved. Those plans were included not to have the Central Asian States falling back into the Russian fold, having control on the oil reserve of the Caspian Sea, having control on enormous mineral reserves of Afghanistan, countering Islamic insurgencies in Pakistan and Central Asian States, keeping an eye on China, and keeping a close watch on Pakistan's nuclear prgram.
Stability in Afghanistan is directly linked to the stability in Pakistan and vice versa. Disintegration of Pakistan would not favor American interests as it would widen the battlefield which, in view of the present global economic slump, America cannot afford. Some would argue that an independent Pakhtunistan and greater Baluchistan would act as buffer zones between the new American-dominated Afghanistan and disintegrated Pakistan. They exemplify it with the tribal buffer zone appearing as a result of the Durand Line Treaty between British India and Afghanistan in 1893. There are flaws in this argument:
- Pakhtuns, according to history, have never been controlled by foreign forces. So independent Pakhtunistan under the influence of America could become a bigger problem for the latter than Pakistan and Afghanistan combined.
- The Baluch have always followed strict tribal codes and any system which disturbs those codes creates difficulties for the tribal chiefs. Pakistan has been facing these problems for decades. For example, only a limited number of disgruntled Baluch Sardars took arms against Pakistan on the basis of tribal codification. The situation was mishandled by a few ill-informed policy makers and aggressive army generals. Establishment of Greater Baluchistan would mean the tribal chief of one tribe governing a state that includes tribal chiefs from enemy folds. It will be a recipe for disorder from the beginning. Such an unstable state will create more problems in the region and the principle of a buffer zone to absorb shocks from neighboring countries will be lost from the very start.
- Religion, which has always been in the bones of Pakhtuns, was reinforced after a few years of Talibanisation of Afghanistan. This will always be a problem for American interests in an independent Pakhtunistan.
- The nuclear installations are mainly in Punjab, which has also lately become a stronghold of the Taliban. In a chaotic scenario of the disintegration of Pakistan, the Punjabi Taliban could get hold of nuclear assets with disastrous consequences. It will make the concept of having buffer zones of independent Pakhtunistan and greater Baluchistan pointless.
Afghanistan:
Disintegration of Pakistan will lead to automatic disintegration of Afghanistan as the resultant Pakhunistan will break away a huge chunk of Pakhtun regions from mainland Afghanistan. The consequences will spread to Panjsher, Hazajaat, Bamyan, Mazar-e-Sharif, Herat and other parts. In other words, the disintegration of Pakistan will break up Afghanistan in rogue states controlled by local warlords with a bleak outcome for America.
The Central Asian States:
The tsunami of a breakup of Afghanistan will have devastating effects on the governments of the adjoining states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. The public in these states is already fretful because of internal politico-religio-economic kerfuffle. Such a disruption will create ripples in adjacent China and nearby Russia.
China:
China has always concentrated on economic development and wants to follow that policy. The West tried to create hurdles in this progress at the time of the breakaway of Hong Kong from Britain or when it pushed Taiwan to involve China in armed conflict. But China resisted the enticement. As a result, it has emerged the second strongest economy of the world today. To keep progress on track, it needs internal and external stability. That stability can be affected adversely if Pakistan disintegrates and Afghanistan and Tajikistan experience deep turmoil. The fire would spread to the province of Xinjiang, the largest Chinese administrative division, which has been in the news for growing Islamic fundamentalism.
Iran:
Any setback to Pakistan will have serious consequences for Iran too. The Jandullah movement will gain momentum creating serious problems for Iran. Also, greater Baluchistan as a result of the balkanization of Pakistan, would engulf Baluchistan of Iran and spread to Sistan in the north where the people feel deprived.
India:
India would also be faced with serious consequences. The reported twenty-four ongoing separation movements, especially in the north east, will get stronger, leading to the country’s instability. The fire will extend to Kashmir and trigger off the Khalistan movement. Soon, India will go through the cycle its neighbor Pakistan went through earlier. The resultant situation will prove to be against the wishes of America which wants to see India stable and stronger economically. Its economy will take a nose dive and its plans of becoming a future economic tiger of Asia will perish. With it, America's dream to pit India against China will also die.
So whichever way one looks at it, the disintegration of Pakistan is not in the interest of America, India or any other neighboring country. And when perfunctory Zulfiqar Mirza and risible Altaf Hussain talk of disintegration one should carefully consider the substance in their accusal. The fear should have been directed towards the deplorable internal conditions resulting from the repeated failure of our dishonest, selfish, incompetent and compromising leaders. They destroyed national institutions and shook the very foundations of the country. The slide can only be reversed and the fear of disintegration be averted if: a) a fearless, honest and visionary leadership emerges from the masses, and b) the crumbling institutions are re-erected in the existing system. The problems lie within. Those who give the example of 1971 to support their argument should know that things have changed. The world is not what it was. Pakistan is not what it was.
