This goes to prove extremism isn’t always a religious proclivity. In this bedevilling environment of extremes, gaming the middle is unacceptable; it must be ‘my way’ or the ‘highway’; ‘with us’ or ‘against us’; ‘us’ versus ‘them’. We stereotype with impunity and shun one away simply by how he looks. We have shut ourselves down to an unfamiliar thought — so insecure we remain as people and society. I always kept a hope alive that when we ever set our eyes on education, we may just turn the corner by educating one generation to the next. My hopes seem dashed. The literate are no different. This is sick. From dysfunctional, we are now a sick country and a sick society. I do not need to qualify this sickness. We live it every day on the streets of Karachi.
Back to the USIP-JI report. There is, however, a serious commission of a glaring error in it, and that appears in the title: the use of the word ‘elite’ in explaining the participants interested in geo-political and security issues as either an academic or professional interest was rather overstretched. Imagine, there are 180 million more, who, too, may have an opinion; and, then who decides who is elite among those? The backlash, thus, is quite natural. A little prevention may have obviated the need for a cure, with a persistent danger that in a perpetually sick society there may never be a cure.
I do wish to comment on the notion of ‘strategic depth’ and other affiliates. What gives relevance to greater concern among the critics of this report is the presence of ‘ten moles’ and thus, by implication, how ‘strategic depth’ may have made an appearance in meaning, if not by literal mention. Of the ten moles, the few that appeared in the discussions in my presence derided the very concept. It may have something to do with its author of yore, and the nature of their professional association, but some of these people have been severe critics of any sense of strategic depth. A couple of those have widely held that an Afghanistan, fully dominated by India, is of little concern, since its geographic and logistical contiguity with Pakistan itself generates an intertwining dynamic, difficult to shake away by the fiercest inimicus. It is widely recognised, even within the present-day ‘Establishment’, that Pakistan has its “plate full”, possibly for years to come, in cleaning out the mess that has spilled over from Afghanistan or found root within, without spare capacity to, in addition, worry about Afghanistan. What the interlocutors of these deliberations mention as the way forward is how ‘they’ think the region may muddle its way through with least pain, not essentially how things might actually shape-up. Of those, ‘strategic depth’ is a dead notion, beyond the capacity of today’s Pakistan.
Of the implied synonymity of Pakhtuns with the Taliban, unfortunately, the sensibilities are easily ruffled. For one, the Pakhtuns this side of the border find it difficult to differentiate from those across — whether herein lies the genesis of an uncertified Durand Line, is anyone’s guess. Two, the original Taliban movement took its root from within the Kandahari Pakhtuns, unless we wish to germinate it in the precincts of Haqqania in Akora Khattak. Three, the Taliban as a force answered the manifest void in the post-Communist Afghanistan. And fourth, the Taliban continue to challenge foreign presence, facilitated by the non-Pakhtun Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. Each is a patently an Afghan-centred effort, pursued by the Afghan Taliban who remain predominantly Afghan Pakhtuns. The Pakistani genre of the Taliban, too, are rooted in the tribal regions with, one might add, profuse support of non-Pakhtun Pakistanis. Getting the context right may just help soothe frayed emotions. Without the Pakhtuns of Afghanistan, included in the post-American Afghan political set-up, there shall be no peace in Afghanistan, and selfishly, without peace in Afghanistan, there cannot be peace in Pakistan.
It is easy to deride someone’s work, but we must graduate in our debate from symbols to issues. A society on edge is a bad omen for serious debate but, with right minds willing to meet in the centre, ways open up. Let the literate hold the torch of reason and wean us away from a literal strategic depth.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 19th, 2011.
COMMENTS (18)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Why we are hiding the truth, to look at the situation of Pakistan bake to the time, when Russia attacked Afghanistan, the Pakistani government was one of the biggest player in that game why? Because, there were benefits for the Pakistani government on that time. And why now Pakistan stand at the front of US war and killing their own people is all about this that they are in benefit. They are getting million and million in the game has been started. Pakistan will come in trap one day, If they keep these games. So, please Pakistan stop these games and change the situation to a peaceful and prosperous one.
Thanks,
Isn't the concept of "strategic depth" obselete given modern day weaponery?
Afghanistan does not offer any strategic depth to Pakistan. It can be termed as a strategic threat as evident from the present turbulent situation. Departure of US and NATO troops from Afghanistan is likely to create a vacuum and the country will revert to post 2001 status. Taliban have lost their influence, warlords are likely to strike back and extend the war beyond borders. Besides, in such a situation limited proxy actions or intolerance will gain currency and mercenaries across the globe are likely to take the centre stage. That way the future war take its shape and dimensions, where the bordering countries have to fight their survival. Pakistan, India and China are going to be the worst hit. Ipso facto, new alliance will be forged among the regional nations and war will never end as Afghanistan will act like a ruffian in town.
To conflate all Pashtuns either side of the Durand line as being Taliban supporters and backers is the voice of the Establishment, whatever others may think or say. At gunpoint I am a supporter of whoever holds the Gun. The Taliban terrorised the Afghan population when in Power, made the life of Women a misery and gave refuge to all colours of Terror groups, criminals and Hijackers. Why not get a survey done by an International organisation like Gallup to ascertain whether Afghans would like to be ruled by the Taliban. After ascertaining the wishes of the population should a think tank prepare a report. If India and other neighbours are not worried about who rules Islamabad, why the country must worry who governs in Kabul. Has anyone enquired what the people of NWFP and FATA want from the Government in Islamabad ? Secondly, why were no critics a part of this heavy duty exercise. Surely there are a number of intellectuals who do not subscribe to the "strategic depth" policy or the destructive use of non state actors to destabilize the neighborhood. The faster policies are taken off the plate of Military and Militant sympathizers the brighter will be the countries future. At least the sympathy and goodwill of the International community should count for something.
The author, try as he might , just cannot wean himself away from the Strategic Depth concept he supported as an establishment man!!! It is just oozing from the lines!!
Strategic depth = PAK is getting into deeper hole.
“Silly neighbour, are you going to carry that load all by yourself? Here, let me help you with that.” ~ Pakistan on Afghanistan's internal affairs
Mr Shahzad Chaudhury's ideas are what have made what Pakistan is today. I do not understand why he keeps repeating them.
Let us not get taken in by yet another circuitous attempt at throwing dust in our eyes and making the inexplicable respectable.
Like any state we have genuine interests. But unlike any other country in modern times, we are the only ones that have adopted 1) terror and 2) 'not - India' as our state policy - no matter the cost to us. We accuse the world of interference in our affairs. Yet, without batting an eye lid, we seek to interfere in Afghanistan with retrogressive proxies like the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Haqqanis and so on. Why can't the Afghans decide who their friends ought to be? Why can't we invest like India is? If we wanted to be imaginative, could we not invest through our friend China?
But, given how important this is to our elite, why not allow open debate in Parliament and media? Why not seek approval of the Parliament? That way the "civilian quarter" will have its chance to contain the dominance of the establishment elite. Isn't that far better than sitting around Dupont Circle in the middle of the night and making policy for the rest of us?
If the author is serious about the debate on strategic depth, he should inform his readers that if at Pakistan some "strategic depth" in the past two wars with India, in 1965 and in 1971, it was Iran where Pakistan Air Force's fleet took refuge! Finding a strategic depth in Afghanistan is a later days 'construct' perhaps devised for Saudi interests!
The mention of 'strategic depth' seems to have touched raw nerves. Hence the verbal acrobatics. Can we expect the author to be honest enough to explain his stand on strategic depth in plain English? He owes it to the readers.
How can "right" minds meet in the center when the report that you are defending didnt even consider alliterative views? And how condescending can you get? "Let the literate hole the torch of reason", so your interpretation should be accepted by everyone else as the rational thing to do? And what do you mean facilitated by the Northern Alliance, are they not Afghans? What about Tajiks and Uzbeks, do you not consider then Afghans, or Persian speaking Afghans, Afghans enough for you. Pakistan foreign policy elite seem to think that the Pashtun population is 110% behind the Taliban and view them as freedom fighters..says who? Which Afghan wants the Taliban back in power? The truth that no Pakistani accepts is that Pakistan is the state that is hated in Afghanistan, which includes many Pashtuns as well. That doesnt seem to click at all. Once again, Pakistan is a country that gets worked up with any notion of foreign interference, how does interfering in Afghanistan help us??