Normalcy in Pakistan’s Internal and External Affairs

In July 1946, All India Muslim League found itself in hot water of political environment of the Subcontinent: the Congress was adamant in rejection of League’s demand for independent Pakistan and the Britishers were also reluctant to acknowledge this demand. Left with no choice, the Muslim League called upon Muslims to peacefully observe the Direct Action Day on August 16, 1946. “Whereas Muslim India”, bemoaned the resolution of the Muslim League Council “has exhausted, without success, all efforts to find a peaceful solution of the Indian problem by compromise and constitutional means … now the time has come for the Muslim nation to resort to Direct Action, to achieve Pakistan…” By sanctioning the Direct Action, the Muslim League went down on a path of showing its strength and making it abundantly clear that it was willing to abandon constitutionalism to gain freedom. That decision marked a clear difference in the history of the subcontinent and made the partition of India inevitable.

More importantly, it reflects that the founders of our country were increasingly realizing that freedom, though an inherent right of every person, was to be enjoyed only by strong ones.

And then came the day the AIML had been struggling for – the 14th August 1947, the day of independence. But with independence, changed everything. The newfound freedom was not without challenges. The greatest challenge, of course, came from the ideological proposition of Akhand Bharat (Undivided India) that totally opposed – and does negate still today – the idea of independent Pakistan. Soon, in 1948, the nascent states of India and Pakistan fought a limited war over Kashmir that, on the part of Pakistan’s policymakers, enforced fears of an aggressive and belligerent India hostile to the very creation of Pakistan.

Amidst such scenario, with challenges and insecurity for the country on the one hand, and inexperienced and incompetent leadership on the other, our politicians and policymakers conceived that the ultimate show of strength in post-independence period lay in keeping the country going. They defined the country’s national interest and ideology against existential threats from India and, viewing from this lens, put country’s survival and security at the top.

The collapse of civilian leadership and continued hostility with India allowed greater space for military to venture into the country’s affairs. Further, in religion as well as in hostile geopolitical environment, political and cultural elites of the country found convenient narratives to perpetuate the status quo and monopolize power.

Although there remained a persistent criticism on narrowly-defined anti-India foreign policy, a majority of the people proved firmly willing to go to great lengths in defending the country against threats – both real and perceived – from India. One way or another, the international scenario also supported this strategic predisposition as international system was characterized by intense Cold War rivalries between the USSR and the USA, and both India and Pakistan were aligned to opposing power blocs.

However, the end of the Cold War and subsequent massive reformations in China and India challenged the utility of conventional wisdom of strategic and political elites of the country.

In the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, where the US emerged as a dominant economic and military power in the world, China began rising as centre of global industrial growth; India started transforming itself to gain greater political and economic clout in the world; and Europe went ahead to become a massively-integrated economic power. In fact, the year 1991 was a defining time in terms that economics emerged as the primary focus of states’ activities and policies.

Though Pakistan had instrumentalized the defeat of the USSR, yet at the end of the Cold War, it didn’t appear victorious. Quite contrarily, it was carrying a burden of strategic blunders and betrayals. To confront expansionist USSR on Afghan soil, Pakistan employed militant narratives in order to radicalize and train proxies. In the course of these ventures, it eroded its cultural power with its own hands. Moreover, as the politics in the country remained subjected to repeated military incursions, the democracy and political culture failed to flourish. Consequently, Pakistan lost the strength of its political power too. Moving further, the economy was also not presenting a spectacle of success and strength; rather it was at large shabby and deteriorating. It is needless to point out, therefore, that the country possessed nothing of the sort that could give it a sense of an economic power. It is apparent from many aspects and faces that the country’s costly military endeavours were built on its economic and political decline.

So, under its increasing obsession with external threats, Pakistan was actually being destroyed from threats that lay inside its borders. In short, the post-Cold War scenario made it vividly clear that the greatest threats to the country were internal, not external.

However, the realization didn’t run deep as nearly after a decade from the abrupt end of Zia’s military rule, the country was witnessing another decade of military era. Though the country aligned itself with the US after the 9/11 attacks and continued to amass its military power, yet its overall power and influence couldn’t increase as a result of its weakening political, economic and cultural standings. As it turned out, it had always been a grave mistake on the part of strategic thinkers and policymakers to heavily rely on military prowess while shrugging off other dimensions of power.

Pakistan’s place in Asia is not meant to be what Suriname’s is in America or that of Cyprus in Europe. Rather, it possesses immense potential to be one of the pivotal states in the world’s economic and political activities. Pakistan is the second largest country of South Asia with great geopolitical significance in the world. The country has deep historical and cultural affiliations with many countries in the world. In terms of population, it is the world’s sixth largest country and in terms of nuclear power, it is the only state in the Muslim world having nuclear weapons. Therefore, it is imperative for the country to place its focus on building its political and economic clout in the world.

Currently, Europe is fragmented and gradually returning to its historical condition of multiple competing states, with resurgent Russia posing greater threats. The US, on the other hand, is undergoing another period of indifference toward global affairs. Amidst several challenges, China is heavily investing in transforming its export-based economy to a consumer-driven one. For Pakistan, these defining characteristics of the era, along with some other related developments, translate into a brief period of opportunity to address its internal challenges and build an advanced and diversified economic and political infrastructure. This time, of all times, demands Pakistan to gain its respectful place in the world and that Pakistan must not waste the opportunity, as it has been at most of the times, just because being chained to the obsession with what it fears.

Highlights 

1. The Muslim League called upon Muslims to peacefully observe the Direct Action Day on August 16, 1946.

2. By sanctioning the Direct Action, the Muslim League went down on a path of showing its strength.

3. International system was characterized by intense Cold War rivalries between the USSR and the USA, and both India and Pakistan were aligned to opposing power blocs.

4. The year 1991 was a defining time in terms that economics emerged as the primary focus of states’ activities and policies.

5. As the politics in the country remained subjected to repeated military incursions, the democracy and political culture failed to flourish.

6. It is imperative for the country to place its focus on building its political and economic clout in the world.

7. Currently, Europe is fragmented and gradually returning to its historical condition of multiple competing states.

8. The US is undergoing another period of indifference toward global affairs.