Who threats Pak military regime?

By K.N. Pandita

Why sensationalise fast changing political scenario in Pakistan? It isn’t something new in her history. By and large people get the government they deserve, goes the mantra.

More interesting than what is happening on the ground is the comical incoherence in the statements of US foreign secretary. Condoleezza advises Musharraf to restore constitution and pursue scheduled elections. What an irony! The US promptly rewarded the military regime with a hefty ten billion dollar bonanza for having sent democracy packing home in Pakistan in 1999.

In Pakistan power rests neither with the people nor with constitution: it rests with Army; and the army draws strength from the US, politically, strategically and financially.

If democracy succeeds in Pakistan, then Army is out; if Army is out, the US is out. That gives a jolt to regional strategic configuration. If the US is out, who except China will have to look after the Asiatic orphan?

But lessons of Pakistan’s past history tell us she will steer through the upheaval smoothly as she did at several times in the past. American orphanage has many promises to offer a stranded inmate.

Pakistan Army — the state within a state – has not put all of its chips on the US. Over the years, it has carved its broad based constituency — the jihadis. Perfect understanding exists between the two. Brave Pakistani troops deployed in Waziristan do not “fight” against Al Qaeda and Taliban; they surrender to them in large numbers: that is Islamic fraternity in practice. The hostage money is equally divided between those taken hostage and those taking hostage.

Washington’s worry is lest Pakistani troops change stance and begin real fight against Taliban and Al Qaeda. If that happens, Washington will have no justification to be in the area. Skirmishes should continue for indefinite number of years is what the Americans wish secretly.

For what reasons did Pervez Musharraf ask his Corps Commanders to be effective in Waziristan: it is difficult to guess. Many Taliban and civilians got killed. This alarmed Washington. That is why Condoleezza issued a veiled threat saying that the US did not put all chips on Musharraf. General Kiyani had been cooling heels at the US Embassy in Islamabad for quite some time before he became Army Chief. He owes an obligation to his overseas benefactors.

At the worst, Musharraf will find that he is replaced by another General who reads from the same desk book of rules from which Musharraf had read a chapter in 1999.

Pakistan’s political leaders in exile or at home are non-entities, as long as Pakistan Army remains in the stranglehold of the White House, the Pentagon and CIA triumvirate.

There is occasional hullabaloo about Pakistani Islamic bomb falling into the hands of terrorists. What a naivety? When was Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal in the hands of the President or the Army Chief or any other authority? In that sense the US is the most peaceful player with all the four aces in her hand.

The people of Pakistan, the worst sufferers in the tussle, need not fight either the US or President Musharraf or the Army. If they want to survive as decent human beings, they must begin their relentless fight against Theo-fascists at home and abroad. Only unarmed civil society of Pakistan and not her Sino-American armed troops have the real strength and capability to fight and overpower it.

And finally, for Pakistan’s military regimes no threat is graver than that of Indian democracy. Therefore the key to her Army’s domination is to perpetually project India as enemy number one. Fortunately for Pakistan’s military regime, Indian democracy is gradually mauled, bruised and mutilated by her pseudo-secularist and caste-bank politicians of all hues. Pakistan should not be impatient in taking on Indian democracy; things sometimes happen by themselves also.

(The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).