Tinder box
Sunday August 31, 2008
Musharraf’s exit not a sign of hope
Anyone who thinks President Pervez Musharraf’s resignation has put Pakistan on the path to democracy is guilty of the same wishful thinking that Iraq would embrace democracy as soon as Saddam Hussein was removed.
Personally, I suspect that Pakistan is headed for chaos.
Which might not seem particularly important to us, comfortably distant on the opposite side of the world. Except that Pakistan is the key to Afghanistan, where 93 Canadian soldiers have already died.
When Bush Cheney & Rumsfeld Inc. launched their war on terrorism, after September 11, 2001, Musharraf got a call from Washington. Basically, the call asked, “Are you with us, or against us?”
Since Musharraf’s military depended on U.S. handouts, he didn’t have much choice.
But Washington’s assumption that Pakistan could be an ally against al Qaida and the Taliban was fearfully flawed from the outset.
Bush and his advisors overlooked Pakistan’s reason for existence.
Bitter history
Before August 1947, Pakistan had been part of India. But as sectarian violence erupted during Indian Independence, Muslims fled to regions where they hoped to be safe – much as Jews around the world have seen an independent Israel as their sanctuary from persecution.
No one knows how many Muslims died en route to what was then West Pakistan. But a schoolmate of mine recalls riding a train that passed through disputed territories along the border between India and Pakistan.
At one stop, fanatical Hindus surged through the carriages, dragging anyone they suspected of being Muslim off the train and slaughtering them. At the next, equally fanatical Muslims did the same to Hindus.
The scenario recurred each time the train stopped.
Just a generation ago, a large proportion of Pakistan’s people were refugees, driven from their homes by religious persecution. They abandoned everything—wealth, status, history—to start over again.
They still blame India—and behind India, the colonial powers who abandoned them.
Little western contact
Compounding that lingering religious animosity, the tribes who live in the mountains along Pakistan’s northwest frontier are linguistically and ethnically related to the Afghans just across the border.
They are a fierce people. I’ve read stories of them playing a version of polo using an enemy’s head as the ball.
And they are fanatically Islamic.
Pakistan has few tourist attractions to compare with the Taj Mahal or the burning ghats of the Ganges.
So if the average Pakistani has encountered an American, it’s probably a missionary who considers Islam a defective faith—in extreme cases, a demonic faith—from which Muslims need to be converted.
And George Bush imagined that these people would welcome the chance to fight alongside evangelical American generals against their own religious, racial, and cultural kin? Gimme a break!
Increasingly, military strategists seem to be recognizing that they cannot put out fires in Afghanistan while Pakistan feeds the flames.
Musharraf’s failure
As president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf pretended to crack down on extremist Islamic factions to appease his western friends. In the beginning, he attempted some democratic and human rights reforms, particularly affecting women. But he lacked political skills and popular support. All he had for most of his presidency was his command of the army. When he dumped the army to retain the presidency, the army dumped him.
Western governments believed that the late Benazir Bhutto could mobilize public opinion against the madrassahs where young Muslim men were trained to hate western capitalism.
But she was assassinated—probably by the outlaws she threatened.
The coalition formed after her death had only one cause in common—their hostility to Musharraf. The coalition fractured as soon as he removed himself.
If Pakistan’s army would not, or could not, control the tribes along the Afghan border while their own commander was in charge, it’s hardly likely they will do better for a fractious and divided civilian government.
The crucial role of Kashmir
I’m open to contradiction on this, but I think the long-term solution for the conflict in Afghanistan lies in Pakistan. And success in Pakistan depends on India.
The fulcrum is Kashmir. With its spectacular lakes, mountains, and decorated houseboats, Kashmir could be a tourism bonanza for someone.
But India and Pakistan have spent 60 years attacking each other’s forces in Kashmir. Three full-fledged wars have resulted in a region split three ways, with Pakistan, India, and China each occupying a portion.
At the time of Partition, in 1947, Kashmir and Jammu’s monarch chose to align with India. But Kashmir’s population is overwhelmingly Muslim—about 80 per cent over all, almost 95 per cent in the Kashmir valley itself. As in Tibet, the Kashmiri people would prefer independence. But if they must belong to some other country, memories of religious persecution incline them toward Pakistan.
With Kashmir as a festering sore, Pakistan continues to see India—not its own lawless tribes or Afghan insurgents—as its primary enemy.
A country with such a victim mentality is unlikely to shift its efforts to take on a second enemy on its western front.
Tinder box ready to flare
Here’s my pessimistic prediction. The civilian government in Pakistan will fail to control fanatical Islamic elements. The army will seize control again.
The United States will reward the generals with abundant military hardware. Afghan insurgents will somehow end up better equipped than ever. Even more American and Canadian soldiers will die.
A frustrated U.S. will bomb the Taliban’s support network in Pakistan, as it did in Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam war.
If India takes advantage of Pakistan’s crisis to consolidate its hold on Kashmir, a desperate Pakistan could unleash nuclear weapons. If India shows restraint, disaster could be averted.
That’s why I see Pakistan as the tinder that could ignite a world conflagration.
PostScript: In last Sunday’s column, I wanted to identify some issues related to in-camera meetings and legal rulings, using Kelowna as my example. I had no intention of blaming specific individuals.
=================================
Copyright © 2007 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups permitted; all other rights reserved.
=================================
PROMOTION PLUGS
To receive this column regularly via e-mail, send a request to jimt@quixotic.ca. E-mail subscribers also get excerpts from correspondence about these columns. Please forward a copy of this column to anyone who might be interested in subscribing. If you want to order my books, you can call 1-800-663-2775 in Canada, 1-800-328-0200 in the U.S., or order them on-line at the Wood Lake Books website. For a lighter look at ethics, faith, and life, I recommend Ralph Milton’s weekly e-newsletter Rumors. You can subscribe to it at the Wood Lake Books home page in Ralph Milton’s Site, or by sending a note directly to ralphmilton@woodlake.com. It’s also worth pursuing Charlene Fairchild’s United Online site. Another site worth visiting is David Keating’s “SeemslikeGod” page.