Lessons Pakistan can learn from Russia

Two centuries ago, a prediction was made by Mikhail Lomonosov (1711-1765), who is the father of Russian science and after whom Moscow State University is named. Lomonosov claimed, “Russia’s might will grow by the way of Siberia.” That seemed to be a strong prediction — one befitting the rise of a great nation. I would like to draw Siberia’s comparison with Pakistan’s Balochistan and its Tribal Areas and give out some lessons that Pakistan can learn in how Russia treated Siberia and converted its wilderness into a most profitable state enterprise in the last hundred years.

We may remember that if Moscow is the front door to Russia, Vladivostok, the Pacific port city on the eastern limits of Siberia is its backdoor. Many factors can determine Russia’s rise as a great power but the game changing factor has been Russia’s ability to connect its front door (Moscow) with its backdoor (Vladivostok) through the Trans-Siberian Railway (1891-1905) over a huge landmass of 5727 miles or 9289 km. What this achievement meant for Russia can be ascertained from the fact that the Roman Empire in the time of Hardin had 53,000 miles of roads, many of them paved, yet Siberia in the late nineteenth century was poorly connected and had only dusty roads and trails.

As a Pakistani reading the history of Siberia, I can hardly keep my mind off from how Russia treated the land of Siberia and its relationship with the state and how we in Pakistan have treated Balochistan and our Tribal Areas on the western border. Siberia covers 77% of Russia’s land area whereas Balochistan covers 43.6% of Pakistan and the Tribal Areas extending along Pak-Afghan border covers 3.4%. In early 20^th century Siberia showcased two lands — land of wilderness and land of exile. In Pakistan’s case as well, both Balochistan and Tribal Areas have been lands of wilderness and lands of exile. I spent greater part of my youth living in Kohat, a garrison city bordering the Tribal Areas and I still remember how the Tribal Areas were called ilaaqa ghair which literally means ‘someone else’s land’. It was called so because the writ of the government was not applicable there and many criminals would take refuge there.

Russia’s Siberian story is a story of conquest of wilderness. It has its grave tragic moments and tragedy of loss of human lives but the journey from savagery to civilisation has been well travelled by Russia. Critics would look at the cost Russia paid in human lives. But I look at it from the point of view of the results it showcases. The Trans-Siberian railway is considered as Russia’s game changer. Our game changer was supposed to be CPEC, the flagship project of China’s BRI. The difference is absolute in terms of how Russia conceived, planned and implemented their game changer project themselves while we jumped on a foreign ship to sail the journey. I am not an economist, so it is much easier for me to see the whole process from a very innocent layman’s lens; but I am a student of geopolitics and I understand what national power means and how the sum of all resources can be utilised in pursuit of a national objective. That objective comes from a national leader who is popular and can create a national will. When Germans attacked Russia in June 1941 and one of the fronts they advanced on was Kiev, Ukraine, the Russians demonstrated great national resolve. They dismantled 332 large industrial enterprises in the next 5 months and to prevent them from falling into German hands shifted them from Donbas region to Western Siberia. That shift today has made Omsk and Novosibirsk cities of western Siberia develop into industrial giants.

Like the American wild west, Siberia was threatened by nomads from south western frontier. So, Russia built 124 fortresses and outposts manned by several thousand Cossacks, most of whom were enlisted from the neighbouring towns. The territory became protected behind the fortified line and many more people willingly settled down in Southern Siberia and proceeded to cultivate fields and do their businesses. Our security system on the Afghan border is the same. We have also constructed military posts and our Frontier Corps also enlists people from the local towns but our results haven’t been the same. Why?

Additionally, Russia’s extension of influence in Serbia in early 20^th century and its standing as a Pacific power altered the strategic balance in Asia; and Britain being a rival power acted to recreate the balance by seeking alliance with Japan. In the Far East, Britain had little manpower strength so it relied on Japan, and sought in Japan the soldiers it lacked. Japan invaded Russia in the end and it resulted in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904 and 1905. The similarity is hard to miss if we see how Pakistan’s alliance with China has altered the balance of power in the region and how India used Afghanistan to change its friendly posture against Pakistan. The two countries have not fought war like Russia and Japan but there is no peace either on our western front. The lesson for Pakistan — American President Theodore Roosevelt arranged a peace conference between Russia and Japan at Portsmouth, New Hampshire that ended the Russo-Japanese conflict. In case of Pakistan, America is the reason we dragged ourselves in a conflict with our western neighbour and it is also the defence and strategic partner of India. So which power do we look up to resolve our conflict with Afghanistan?

Today Siberia’s gold and diamond deposits rival that of Africa, and it has huge oil and gas fields as well as coal, iron, manganese, lead, nickel, cobalt, tungsten and sulfur reserves. Russia didn’t have the incompetent leadership to treat these national assets like Riko Diq mines in Balochistan. Do we have anyone to blame?

The misery of our circumstances is related to how our leadership has treated the people of Pakistan. This leadership is clung to the medieval notions of autocratic power and their policies are now dividing people into three categories. The liberals in Pakistan speak their language and go with their medieval thinking and are too afraid to say a word or object to what wrong is being done to their country. The revolutionists, those that are in the favour of change. What is wrong in being a revolutionary if that revolution is the revolution of ideas and not an armed rebellion. The third are the terrorists who are anti-state and up in arms against the state. If Pakistan’s woes are to end, a people’s elected government must lead the country and military must support such a government and go back doing what we need the most from them — guarding the fortresses and the border posts to prevent transborder smuggling and import of terrorism.