Daily Times

Since independence in 1947, Pakistan has experienced and witnessed tensions between the unitary definition of the nation, inherited from Jinnah, and centrifugal ethnic forces; between civilians and army officers who are not always in favour of or against democracy; and between the Islamists and those who define Islam only as a cultural identity marker. A small entrenched elite continues to dominate the country’s corridors of power. Democratic forces and legal institutions remain weak.

Despite insurmountable problems, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan continues to endure. Democracy has, somehow, survived in Pakistan, despite multiple internal and external factors and forces and deep-seated elitism. Sociological and political analyses require objectivity, which means discarding preconceived notions and false assumptions. Valid and reliable conclusions are essential to guide policy and action. Facts have to be separated from fiction.

In all countries, the political sphere is situated in the interface of internal and external dynamics. This interaction has even given rise to a subset of international relations theories. But in Pakistan, this phenomenon has taken on such a scale that the international environment should be regarded as forming a full-fledged component of domestic policy. The influence of this external element on Pakistan can be explained by the feeling of vulnerability Pakistani elites have toward India and its Afghan partner. As a result, almost every action of Pakistan can be interpreted as a reaction to attitudes and behaviours of Indian political elite, as some writers on the matter, of foreign policy, have indicated.

Tensions between the two countries have continued since 1947, even earlier. An editorial published in Dawn, in 1963, explained in this regard, “If the main concern of the Christian west is the containment of communism, the main concern of Muslim Pakistan is the containment of militarist and militant Hinduism.”

It was during Eisenhower’s presidency that the Pak-US bilateral relationship was initiated in 1952. A beginning had been made in this context by Washington in the 1950s. By that time, Pakistan had become a member of CENTO and SEATO. The American support was to Pakistan’s advantage in terms of preserving its elites’ status. The US sold increasingly sophisticated weapons to Pakistan to allay its fear of Indian aggression and violation of international laws and rules. The US gave such aid that it could do without any true fiscal policy to achieve modernisation. Ayub Khan candidly admitted this when he dealt with the topic in his memories.

Development presupposes resources, and in our social conditions and our scheme of value, these resources cannot all be generated or mobilised through regimentation. Therefore, we have to look for external assistance to build up social overheads and provide the initial capital investment. This necessitates us having good relations with the US and other western powers who are in the position to help us economically. Now, any assistance creates certain liabilities. We have to ensure that we do not incur such liabilities as would compromise or damage our national interests.

Pakistan’s losses of lives and finances are much more than what the US paid

The war of 1965, which provoked American sanctions, was followed by a decline, later reversed by the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan during which the US-funded Pakistan for 10 years. While military aid could be counted in hundreds of millions of dollars, civilian assistance also resumed its upward curve, from 57 million dollars in 1981 to 351 million dollars in 1990. The attacks on September 11, 2001, brought the two countries back to forms of cooperation comparable to those in the 1980s, this time with Afghanistan the theatre of war against terrorism.

To help Pakistan fight it, the US once again offered the country a military windfall as well as considerable civilian assistance. Washington paid Islamabad between a quarter and a third of nearly 20 billion dollars from 2001 to 2011, which was earmarked for development. The war on terror has not ended yet despite 17 to 18 years. Pakistan’s losses of lives (officers, men and civilians) and finances are much more than what the US paid. Pakistan’s sacrifices in the war on terror must be duly acknowledged.

President Trump as world leader may kindly look into Indian brutalities in Kashmir. Sadly the interfaith harmony is not visible anywhere globally this felling is at the root of staunch anti-west and anti-Americanism. Religions harmony requires respect for all religions. That is essential for world peace and stability. Islamabad will have to undertake tax reform, rationalising the system that might reverse the course it has been confined to. In theory, our political leaders are seen favouring trade, not aid. But this effort should move beyond slogans to the realm of reality and respectability.

The international community, more specifically, political leaders, religious leaders, businessmen, industrialists, educationists, judges, legal and financial experts, policymakers and administrators are expected to look into origins of power, prosperity and poverty, to cater to the needs for a better society and a social system based on humanism and justice. Countries should look into their specific problems and economy. But they should also find time for the eradication of evils and threats to humanity. Look at what is happening in Kashmir under brutal Indian rule and regimentation.

Modi should at least regret his recent policy and action. He is Violating Human Rights and killing innocent, unarmed Kashmiris. Kashmiris have been deprived of the right to live. The valley has been turned into a huge, huge jail where prisoners are deprived of all rights, perhaps they are not considered humans. Curfew must end. Lockdown must end. Enough is enough. Indian leaders in New Delhi must look into the humanitarian aspect. Chief Justice of India has to play his role. Hope everyone is awake to do something to help Kashmiris. “Anything could happen when two nuclear-armed neighbours come face-to-face,” warned Imran Khan, speaking at an event in New York the other day.

The writer is the former director of National Institute of Administration (NIPA), Government of Pakistan