What does bin Laden’s death mean to us?

The issues is, the duplicity, the prevarication, the mendacity of the Pakistani state.

Osama bin Mohammad bin Awad bin Laden (1957-2011) was killed on May 2, 2011 by the American Navy’s elite SEAL team in Abbottabad. Since then the significance of his death for Pakistan, the United States and the rest of the world is being debated.

In Pakistan, the public prefers to bury its head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich, seeking refuge in the conspiracy theory that he had actually died earlier and that the whole daring commando operation in the darkness of the night was a ‘drama’. They cite Bin Laden’s burial at sea as proof that something fishy was afoot. That he was recognised by his daughter, his DNA was matched, his photographs were analysed and that some forms of Islamic burial rituals were followed on the USS Carl Vinson in the North Arabian Sea, carries no weight with this group. A Taliban commander swears that Bin Laden died of ill health and that he had lived in Abbottabad since 2006 or so. In short, minus the claim of the Americans that they killed him, everything else is conceded even by the conspiracy-theorists. That there was a raid by the Americans, nobody denies and this makes people lament about our sovereignty.

Their argument is that the US infringed upon Pakistan’s sovereignty because its helicopters intruded into our air space, carried out killings and carried back bodies, computers and retrieval systems belonging to Bin Laden. There is, however, an explanation. It is that the operation was not initially disclosed to Pakistani authorities — as ranking Americans insist — because the Americans felt there are people in Pakistan’s echelons of power who might have rendered it abortive. However, at some point, some brief information — however laconic and uncertain — was given to Pakistani authorities. This explains the fact that the army did reach the house where Bin Laden was killed soon after the operation. It also explains why the helicopters were not intercepted even on their way back. After all, fighter jets — the planes which intercept flying objects — are much faster than helicopters.

If my theory is correct, sovereignty is not the issue. Nor need we worry about Indians doing some such thing. We have no such alliance with the Indians, or any other power, as we have with the Americans just now, so they are not likely to carry out a raid which will trigger hostilities. Of course, it stands to reason that we do not allow our land to be used for attacks on any country, otherwise, that country, too, may be tempted to retaliate, but let us leave that for the moment. Also, there is no need to worry about the safety of nuclear weapons because they are heavily fortified, buried in underground silos and dispersed. One needs bombers not helicopters to destroy them and, as I said before, fighter planes are faster than bombers. But let us also leave that for the moment.

So, if sovereignty is not the issue what is? In my view it is the duplicity, the prevarication, the mendacity of the Pakistani state. We are a deeply fractured nation. Even within the military and the intelligence community there are those who shield militants but there are also those who fight them. We tell our people that we oppose drone attacks while allowing them privately. We still regard the militants as our assets in our war against India, while others amongst us — and often the same people — claim they want to make peace with India. We still believe in ‘depth in Afghanistan’, but we take American dollars to remain its allies. If our public really believes we are allies of America, it would be quite natural for Americans to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan. And, indeed, we have handed over quite a few al Qaeda members to America while perhaps shielding some of them too. But our people are given conflicting signals: That we are allies; that we are enemies. No wonder they are angry and frustrated and confused.

Two alternatives are presented to us about the fact that Bin Laden was hiding in Abbottabad: First, that the Pakistani agencies were so incompetent that they did not know. And, second, that the agencies knew. After all, Abbottabad is where other al Qaeda operatives were captured from, so why was nobody suspicious of a building with foreigners? My hypothesis refers to the same fractured policy mentioned above. Possibly, the top level did not know but there does seem to be a network of support for militants in the country. I have no means of knowing if it is only among the civilians or if it also exists among the serving or retired functionaries of the state. It seems to me that at some level — possibly that of the foot soldiers on the ground or even some of their seniors — there is some support or sympathy for the narrative of al Qaeda and hence of people like Bin Laden who are seen as heroes, more because of their anti-American rhetoric than anything else.

So the major decision we have to take is that we must stop lying to our people; we must no longer be double-faced. If we do not want to be the allies of America in the war in Afghanistan, we must stop taking money for it and we must withdraw from that war openly and honestly. However, that will not absolve us from preventing our militants from attacking our neighbours. It will also not absolve us from our duty to prevent extremists from dictating to us how we should live and dress up. The real test of our sovereignty is that we free our citizens of the fear of the militants, the extortions of the gangsters (as in Karachi) and the threats to our people. Another test is to ensure that no neighbour of ours fears attacks from our soil. Yet another is that the whole of our country is free for us to roam around, with no no-go areas. If the bomb attacks on us don’t subvert our sovereignty, what does?

As for the world, Bin Laden is no more but the al Qaeda ideology is alive. It was born because the West has allowed the Palestinians to be treated unjustly by the Israelis; because the Muslim rulers — dictators, actually — are supported by western powers; and because global trade is manifestly unjust to the non-western world. If the world can change that perhaps other Bin Ladens will not find a willing following. If it does not, Bin Ladens will keep coming? Is that what the world wants?



(This article was written on May 3)

Published in The Express Tribune, May 13^th, 2011.