Learning from history

While we can learn a lot from history, it is ironic that this learning usually occurs in hindsight. The emergent lessons of history also, of course, depend on which version of history is preserved and analysed. Yet, the impacts of history linger, and they mutate, sometimes to reproduce similar results, and at other times, rather contradictory ones.

Let us consider some evident instances of historical contradictions first. We live in a world where victims of persecution themselves have become oppressors. This is what has happened to Israel. Elsewhere, states which once tried to steer clear from Cold War camps have now become enthusiastic proponents of security and economic alliances through which great power competition is being exercised. Formerly non-aligned India, for example, is now at the forefront of the tussle between the US and China, in South Asia at least.

Conversely, an ironic historical mutation became evident when efforts to militarise religion to secure strategic goals subsequently turned into a major source of international destabilisation. Although the US had disappointed Pakistan during its repeated clashes with India, especially in 1965 and 1971, Pakistan managed to cash in on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the 1980s. But once the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, the US lost interest in the region. And as Afghanistan became embroiled in a bloody civil war, Pakistan and the Gulf states backed the Taliban to take over the country. In addition to establishing a repressive regime, the Taliban also provided refuge to al-Qaeda, which managed to perpetrate the 9/11 attack on the US. This, in turn, triggered a twenty-year American-led invasion to dismantle a militant group whose leaders were once lauded as ‘holy warriors’ by President Regan himself.

In another ironic twist of history, the US has phased out its strategic relationship with Pakistan to focus more on forging stronger ties with India. This process has taken place over several decades. The Clinton administration, beholden as it was to corporate interests, realised that the burgeoning Indian market should no longer be ignored. Meanwhile, economic stagnation also prompted India to set aside its socialist aspirations, and welcome World Bank enabled liberalisation. India has, no doubt, accomplished impressive growth in recent years. Yet, this growth is accompanied by a dark underbelly of deprivation and divisiveness. Even if Modi’s Hindutva ideology is tempered by his need to preserve a coalition government, it is unlikely that the US will be willing to censure India over its human rights record.

Conversely, anti-American sentiments whipped up by the deposed Imran Khan government have yet to subside. Nonetheless, Imran Khan’s supporters in the US have been making hectic efforts to lobby American lawmakers to pressure the Pakistan government to release Imran Khan.

Such historical recurrences, mutations and contradictions are intriguing, but they are not immutable. While China’s economy is experiencing its own problems, India is still nowhere near being able to compete with China, despite growing American support. There is no need for China and India to lock horns in the subcontinent. The interests of all regional states would be better served if they shun bloc politics and bet on multilateralism instead of adopting maximalist attitudes. Trying to decouple technologies, create alternative economic cooperation projects to outbid each other, and use proxy states to engage in strategic upmanship reminiscent of the Cold War era is counterproductive and futile exercise.

The US and China must try harder to cooperate. There are major problems, such as climate change, and lingering forms of deprivation, which could be contended with more effectively via collaboration between the so-called ‘great powers’ in our world today. It is about time we began to learn from the past to make more informed choices today, which may give shape to a better future.