Daily Times

Pakistanis have been extremely shocked by the UAE’s awarding the Indian Prime Minister Naraendra Modi the country’s highest civilian honour. Bad enough in itself, given Modi’s association with Hindutva and its anti-Muslim agenda, its timing seems to be in particularly bad taste, given the reign of terror he has unleashed in the Kashmir valley.

Other Muslim countries have either shown indifference to the plight of Kashmiri Muslims or expressed just a mild dissatisfaction. If this shocks Pakistanis, it only shows that their memory is short and their morality highly selective. But Pakistanis are not alone in suffering from amnesia and selective sympathy.

We know that this is not a fair world, although we have made a huge progress: from head hunting and cannibalism to a point where governments sign charters of human rights and even conventions to govern the treatment of prisoners of war. There exist very many international organisations which monitor and speak out against violations of human rights everywhere. That is all very good, god be thanked, but realpolitik still prevails, especially in the corridors of power. It has been a long time since the German word realpolitik appeared on these pages, so it is apt to give its meaning at the outset. Realpolitik means the politics of realism or the pursuit of reality and self-interest in international relations, in contradistinction to moral codes, idealism, fairness and justice.

Which explains why the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, our self-proclaimed fortress of Islam, describes its friendship with avowedly atheistic Communist China as higher than Himalayas, deeper than the Arabian Sea, and sweeter than honey. No wonder, then, that Pakistanis have never questioned their government’s complete silence on China’s treatment of Uighurs in its western province of Xinjiang, even though they are fellow Muslims.

What about the various Kurdish Muslim populations in their struggle for rights against their governments, whether Turkey, Iran, Iraq or Syria? Do we care? Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar are probably the world’s most persecuted and hounded minority. I do not recall Pakistan recalling its Ambassador from that country and doing anything more than pay lip service to the Rohingyas. It is the same with other Muslim countries.

Do Pakistanis even know that, at this very moment, the people of Papua are protesting their shabby treatment in Indonesia? It may be mentioned that this erstwhile Dutch colony, whose population is mostly Christian and animist, was annexed by Indonesia in the 1960s through totally fraudulent means with the support of the US and the United Nations.

Even as I write, Saudi Arabia and UAE, with US support, are waging the most barbaric war in the region’s poorest country, Yemen, which is both Arab and Muslim. Has Pakistan said anything about this war? Or, for that matter, has any country, including India, protested? No.

Why? Because Saudi Arabia and UAE are flush with oil and petro-dollars, while Yemen is wretchedly poor. Iran is the only country which, for reasons of realpolitik again, supports the Yemeni Houthis against the Saudi-Emirati war machine. Breaking news is that realpolitik has now pitted Emiratis against Saudis in Yemen.

And, of course, who even hears any more about Western Sahara, where Morocco, under UN auspices, promised a referendum (like Kashmir) to ascertain the will of the people. It never happened, and the Muslim people of Western Sahara remain under the military occupation of Muslim Morocco. Here too, only Algeria, their Muslim neighbour, supports self-determination for Western Sahara in its own vested interests.

Most Pakistanis care two hoots about the human rights of many ethnic, religious and sectarian groups in their own country, yet they seem really hurt that other countries are not speaking for the rights of Kashmiris

Staying closer to home, it was not so long ago, that the United States joined Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE in providing financial, material, moral and military assistance to the Afghan Mujahideen in the war against Soviet occupation, while India consistently supported the Soviet Union and the pro-Moscow regime in Kabul. Ironically, India continues to support the government in Kabul, albeit one installed there by the US.

The situation in Syria and Iraq boggles the mind. In Iraq, both US and Iran support and sustain the government in Baghdad, while they fight each other in Syria next door, with Iran supporting the government in Damascus and the US unsuccessfully trying to overthrow it with the support of “all the kings’ horses and all the kings’ men” from the Gulf countries (except Qatar).

Similarly, Turkey, the only Muslim country to show any sympathy for Uighurs and Kashmiris, is the deadly enemy of Kurds everywhere. In pursuit of this goal, Ankara aligns itself with America one day and with Russia the next.

If Pakistan will not jeopardise its higher-than-Himalayas relationship with China for the sake of the Muslim Uighur people next door, why should it expect the UAE to damage its very close economic and trade relationship with India for the sake of distant Kashmir? If Pakistan will not criticize Saudi Arabia and Yemen for the brutal war in Yemen, why should it expect the US to condemn India for its relatively mild oppression in Kashmir?

Most Pakistanis care two hoots about the human rights of many ethnic, religious and sectarian groups in their own country, yet they seem really hurt that other countries are not speaking for the rights of Kashmiris.

How did the majority of people in (West) Pakistan react to the brutal repression inflicted by their own military government in (East) Pakistan in 1971? With passionate, overwhelming support. The few, such as Khan Abdul Wali Khan and Asghar Khan, who criticised the military government’s policies were dubbed traitors and enemy agents by their fellow-countrymen.

And India intervened militarily in support of Bangladesh not out of sympathy for the Bengali people of East Pakistan, but to protect and promote its own geo-strategic interests. The truth is that if Pakistan now had the economic, financial and military potential, its armed forces would now march into Srinagar, as the Indian army did in Dhaka in 1971.

A militarily and economically weaker India would cry and scream about it, some countries would criticize Pakistan and sympathise with India, but that would be it. Kashmir would be “hamara (ours)”. For now, though, that remains a very distant dream.

That, dear readers, is the real world, the world of realpolitik. It is economic, financial and military power and interests that are the ultimate arbiters in international relations; charters, conventions, promises and resolutions be damned. For them, for us and for everyone. For now and for the foreseeable future.

The writer is a former academic with a doctorate in modern history