When minds are enslaved
Our political and military elites should come out of the colonised frame of mind
The writer is an assistant professor at Bahria University and PhD scholar at NUST
The release of former CIA contractor Raymond Davis’s book has sent shockwaves through Pakistan’s civil and military establishment. The revelations are not new but they are reminiscent of a brutal and miserable situation that we, as a nation, had to go through. Recap the whole scenario for once: an American spy kills two Pakistanis at a public place, then the Pakistani regime pressures the family to pardon him for money and our top intelligence official personally overlooks the safe return of the spy. This was not just a slap on the integrity of Pakistan, but a reminder to Pakistanis that their state will not support their own citizens in front of powerful nations.
This feeling of humiliation lodges in memory and has an element of revival. The failure to secure the rights of citizens can be corrected in years to come with a better response only if the mind is filled with an urge for integrity and honour. This in turn means thinking about ways and means that are “practically possible” in the face of powerful nations. But if minds have been corrupted with thoughts like “This was the best decision that we took in the interests of the country”, then all hope is lost. This enslavement of the mind will bring more possibilities of utter shame for our country. For instance, just after the Raymond Davis episode we witnessed the Abbottabad raid on the hideout of Bin Laden and Salala attacks on Pakistani servicemen. This was followed by the never-ending drone attacks and calls for “do more” even after a major military operation.
The problem lies with the fact that we have given a clear message to Americans in that the lives of our citizens are nothing but fodder in the war on terror. Why would they not exploit our weak self-positioning for their interests? A common layman response is “What else can we do? Can we fight the Americans?” An informed reply would be “No, we cannot fight them head on, but does that mean we should not stop them even politically or diplomatically?”
A small lesson on global politics is that wars between states are not a boxing match in a ring where the mighty can defeat the weak easily. There are thousands of factors present in international scenarios which is why America cannot just start a war on a morally weak incident. Does America start a war when Ecuador throws out the US ambassador? Does America start a war when Iran targets an American drone in its vicinity? Does America start a war when Qatar is accused of financing terror? Does Russia engage in war when Turkey shoots down its plane? Wars do not erupt instantaneously without a strong pretext in the current global scenario. Take, for instance, the Afghan war: 9/11 and the campaigning of public opinion against al Qaeda was one major reason for entering Afghanistan. Similarly, a full one year campaign arguing the presence of weapons of mass destruction was needed before entering Iraq. In short, America cannot just go to war with a country over the detainment of one of their criminal citizens. They do not even have moral entitlement to do so in such a case.
Moreover, we customarily tend to forget that we are a nuclear power nation. It is an intense security badge that we wear. I am not suggesting a war with America; rather I am suggesting a policy of restraint. We should not undervalue ourselves to the advantage of America. General Pervez Musharraf did exactly that after 9/11. Rather than looking for alternative allies in the global world and making life challenging for the Americans, we gave them everything out of fear of being attacked. That created a mess in our own country.
This binary approach of “with us or against us” or “follow American orders or get ready for war” is nothing but an easy tactic for an already enslaved mind with defeatist thoughts. Our political and military elites should come out of the colonised frame of mind.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 9th, 2017.
This feeling of humiliation lodges in memory and has an element of revival. The failure to secure the rights of citizens can be corrected in years to come with a better response only if the mind is filled with an urge for integrity and honour. This in turn means thinking about ways and means that are “practically possible” in the face of powerful nations. But if minds have been corrupted with thoughts like “This was the best decision that we took in the interests of the country”, then all hope is lost. This enslavement of the mind will bring more possibilities of utter shame for our country. For instance, just after the Raymond Davis episode we witnessed the Abbottabad raid on the hideout of Bin Laden and Salala attacks on Pakistani servicemen. This was followed by the never-ending drone attacks and calls for “do more” even after a major military operation.
The problem lies with the fact that we have given a clear message to Americans in that the lives of our citizens are nothing but fodder in the war on terror. Why would they not exploit our weak self-positioning for their interests? A common layman response is “What else can we do? Can we fight the Americans?” An informed reply would be “No, we cannot fight them head on, but does that mean we should not stop them even politically or diplomatically?”
A small lesson on global politics is that wars between states are not a boxing match in a ring where the mighty can defeat the weak easily. There are thousands of factors present in international scenarios which is why America cannot just start a war on a morally weak incident. Does America start a war when Ecuador throws out the US ambassador? Does America start a war when Iran targets an American drone in its vicinity? Does America start a war when Qatar is accused of financing terror? Does Russia engage in war when Turkey shoots down its plane? Wars do not erupt instantaneously without a strong pretext in the current global scenario. Take, for instance, the Afghan war: 9/11 and the campaigning of public opinion against al Qaeda was one major reason for entering Afghanistan. Similarly, a full one year campaign arguing the presence of weapons of mass destruction was needed before entering Iraq. In short, America cannot just go to war with a country over the detainment of one of their criminal citizens. They do not even have moral entitlement to do so in such a case.
Moreover, we customarily tend to forget that we are a nuclear power nation. It is an intense security badge that we wear. I am not suggesting a war with America; rather I am suggesting a policy of restraint. We should not undervalue ourselves to the advantage of America. General Pervez Musharraf did exactly that after 9/11. Rather than looking for alternative allies in the global world and making life challenging for the Americans, we gave them everything out of fear of being attacked. That created a mess in our own country.
This binary approach of “with us or against us” or “follow American orders or get ready for war” is nothing but an easy tactic for an already enslaved mind with defeatist thoughts. Our political and military elites should come out of the colonised frame of mind.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 9th, 2017.