Taken

When, last week, President Trump met eight Muslim leaders on the sidelines of the 80th UN General Assembly session, it was clear that something significant was afoot. For an average Pakistani, it was a pleasant surprise to note that their prime minister was one of those eight leaders. Pakistan has witnessed a status upgrade since the four-day war with India in May this year. Shortly before the UNGA session, Pakistan and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia surprised the world by forging a comprehensive strategic defence alliance. This materialised immediately after an Israeli attack in Doha, Qatar. There was, therefore, plenty to discuss at the meeting.

The next day, the Indian media's hate-filled convulsions revealed that PM Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir were to meet President Trump. When something this big happens, reactions in Pakistan are quite interesting. A visible majority celebrates such milestones. Gradually, however, cynics begin to emerge. Call it an unbearable lightness of being, low self-esteem, trauma or perpetual insecurity, they seem convinced that, on merit, Pakistan does not deserve such importance. So inevitably there must be an angle. If space permits, we may try to explore the roots of this cynicism later. At that time jealousies kick in and hecklers spring to life. In short, every happy moment is turned into a tamasha.

But, as was pointed out earlier, it was evident that something important was brewing. So, when President Trump unveiled his twenty-point plan to end the Israeli war in Gaza, I read it word for word several times. I found nothing objectionable in it. The biggest advantage of the plan was the immediate cessation of hostilities. This meant an end to the deaths of innocents. And while there were many moving parts, I could see a clear path to a two-state solution.

The Muslim leaders who attended the first meeting obviously saw the merits too. From Erdogan to PM Sharif, all welcomed it, and a joint statement was also issued to this effect. There were only two parties who could be upset with the deal: Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas. Both could foresee an end to their political careers. Netanyahu is riding a tiger. Ending this war would mean disembarking from this tiger and eventually becoming its food. Hamas' decommissioning would render it irrelevant.

Suddenly, in Pakistan, we started seeing pushback. The criticism was mostly aligned with left-leaning movements around the world. Initially, it was claimed that it did not promise the establishment of a Palestinian state; however, it would automatically lead to recognition of the Israeli state. When the text of the proposal was read out to them, showing that there was no mention of the automatic recognition of Israel and pointing out the reference to the Saudi-French proposal which indeed meant the eventual establishment of the state of Palestine, the critics changed tack. Now a two-state solution was not good enough for them. It had to be Palestine all the way. Many were also infuriated that a non-Palestinian was going to head the interim board.

Recently, the western media's hypocrisy on the ongoing Palestinian genocide has come into sharp focus. But nobody, including our pundits, is keen to tell the whole story. There exists an empathy wall between the two worlds. And empathy is tribal. So it becomes easier for spoilers to flood the zone. The situation is further complicated by religious parties. The Jamaat-e-Islami is clearly aligned with Hamas and currently starved of attention. The PTI treats everything not done by its leader as an act of religious sacrilege. And when the TLP joins the fray, you know you are in trouble.

I do not mean to belittle genuine dissent and disagreement. I know enough good-intentioned people on both sides of the divide to never entertain such generalisations. But when you take a close look at Pakistan's history you notice a clear pattern. Pakistan has the wherewithal to make an impact. Its role during the Cold War and the War on Terror speaks volumes. But what Islamabad lacks is the ability to sustain its gains. Whatever it gains one day becomes a liability the next. India's soft power, brain trust and diplomatic muscle may have something to do with it, but this also raises serious questions about counter-intelligence.

I am a big believer in Hanlon's razor which states: never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence or stupidity. Serious mistakes and misjudgements can be made. But then there are too many coincidences. I call them synchronicities, if not something more devious. Want examples?

Indian-occupied Ladakh explodes and people talk about a Nepal-like Gen Z unrest. Sonam Wangchuk is arrested. A few days later, similar violence erupts in Azad Kashmir and pundits are at pains to make it about Gen Z. I have repeatedly tried to draw attention to the fact that Mashal Khan's lynching took place right when the world was shocked by Pehlu Khan's lynching in India. Strange things happen in Pakistan whenever something of the same magnitude takes place in India. If these cases of murder, rape, lynching, bans, victimisation and other disasters are not part of a sinister pattern, they are synchronicities.

Long before 9/11, Netanyahu had subverted the influence model. Instead of trying to woo liberals of any country, he began to cut secret deals with the hardliners in rival countries. This kept the spectre of terrorism alive and gave him the chance to make Islam and terrorism synonymous. Immediately after 9/11, India joined in and their Islamophobic project flourished. Under pressure, Muslim countries have tried to open up, making them susceptible to foreign intrigue and machinations.

India and Pakistan's case is quite instructive. Pakistan aspires to be a democracy. While a procedural democracy, India aspires to be a dictatorship. For decades, its intelligence community has had access to things that Pakistan lacked: an almost infinite supply of money and human resources. It mapped out every Pakistani fault line — religious, political, economic and ethnic divides; party competition; family jealousies; personal rivalries — all putty in its hand. So it can polarise society and cause unrest at the drop of a hat. Its embeds must have found enough time in Pakistan to get entrenched in the system. After repeatedly flagging such incidents and highlighting the need for an aggressive counter-intelligence push, I have given up hope for a correction.

Meanwhile, bad things happen to people who go beyond the call of duty and in doing so become India's targets. I have learned through personal experience that, in the absence of a drastic change of heart, the state of Pakistan cannot, or for some reason will not, protect you if you risk your own safety in its service. So be it. I will keep writing and bring detailed evidence to your attention in the coming days. You will know then why we cannot sustain our achievements. Societally we are already taken.