[Reader-list] Listen, gentlemen! —Marvi Sirmed

[Pawan Durani]

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\07\21\story_21-7-2010_pg3_2

Considering the establishment’s numerous attempts in the past to
disgrace the civilian leadership both domestically and
internationally, it is particularly disturbing to see the latter not
trying to understand the hazards involved if it keeps on kneeling
before the former

Like Dwight David Eisenhower, I had always thought that both the
people of Pakistan and India have wanted peace and that both
governments (read establishments) had better get out of their way and
let them have it. This thought remained embedded in my mind until I
went outside the usual circle of peaceniks on both sides of the border
and met people from the ‘other’ side of the ideological divide thanks
to the social networking media.

Almost a week before the recent talks between the two foreign
ministers, S M Krishna and Shah Mehmood Qureshi, there was a huge cry
on the internet from the Indian side against the discussions. These
people, as I understand, might not be pro-war but still do not support
the dialogue unless Pakistan takes concrete actions against the 26/11
accused who are roaming scot-free in Pakistan. Amid a strong
opposition from the domestic front, Mr Krishna came to Pakistan and in
his first pre-negotiations statement, reiterated India’s desire for an
open dialogue for the sake of long-term peace.

Many analyses have been heard about the course of discussions, the
post-discussions scenario, the body language of the two ministers and
the ensuing diplomatic spat that ended the episode on a rather bitter
note. While the media was not very hopeful regarding the outcome, the
stiff stance maintained by Shah Mehmood Qureshi and an equal display
of terseness by S M Krishna was far from the expectations of many.

The press conference started with a comparatively lukewarm opening by
Qureshi, but gradually showed signs of unprecedented bluntness and
marked an unpleasant departure from diplomatic finesse. Towards the
end of the event, Krishna had established himself as the mature
diplomat, avoiding indulging in personal criticisms. It is important
to note that Qureshi continuously used the word ‘engagement’, while
Krishna adopted ‘concern’. This difference in the substance of the
discourse — a willingness to engage as opposed to the element of
distrust as the primary matter of concern — resulted in a poorly
written soap opera.

My Twitter account was flooded with taunts by a host of Indians from
different walks of life — from media and film celebrities, youngsters
from universities to marketing and sales persons — all directed
against the Pakistani foreign minister. It seems that generally,
Indians were following the Indo-Pak talks with more interest and
anxiety as opposed to a strange indifference in Pakistan. Upon my
deliberate provocative statements (the usual way to get response from
Pakistanis on social media because they seem to be there for fun, not
intellectual discourse), some of the responses were of a reactive
nature rather than antagonistic to the peace process. Indians, on the
other hand, were lambasting their government for making the ‘wrong’
decision to engage in talks with Pakistan. Hawks on both sides were
smiling with a “See, didn’t we say earlier?” kind of arrogance.

Things were different a day before Krishna arrived. What went wrong
then? It is intriguing to note that Krishna was to meet the prime
minister (PM) at 3:30 pm and see President Zardari exactly two hours
later. Around 3:00 pm, he was notified of the change in schedule and
that he would call on the president prior to the PM. While he was
meeting the president, the PM was giving an audience to the army chief
(who had already met the president earlier in the day). Reportedly,
both the meetings involving General Kayani were regarding the security
situation and the army’s operational matters. When the talks between
the two foreign ministers resumed, the atmosphere, according to a fly
on wall, had totally changed.

Considering the establishment’s numerous attempts in the past to
disgrace the civilian leadership both domestically and
internationally, it is particularly disturbing to see the latter not
trying to understand the hazards involved if it keeps on kneeling
before the former. Whatever truth may be behind the Kargil
misadventure, it was the civilian administration that had to take the
brunt of embarrassment internationally. Likewise, in the wake of this
badly handled ministerial engagement, it is the political leadership
that has made itself a target of international humiliation by
appearing unreasonable even in a media briefing.

Analysts have been heard advising those in power not to touch an
organised and dreadful militant outfit such as the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba
(LeT) and its leader Hafiz Saeed, the alleged mastermind of the Mumbai
attacks. The view is that since LeT is not bothering Pakistan as much,
it would be better not to divert the military’s attention from the
Taliban on the northern front. If we even have some sense of learning
left in our poisoned minds, it might not be very difficult to
ascertain that giving militancy, even if it is dormant, a free hand is
going to be fatal for Pakistan itself. The moment (which has probably
come) when these ‘dormant’ militant organisations gel with their
ideological brethren in the north, turmoil, destruction and blood will
be the only things Pakistanis would witness.

Pushing the Pakistani Taliban to the corner, while safeguarding their
Afghan parents and potential allies at home would only make them join
hands rather swiftly because those fighting against the Pakistan Army
need hard cash, logistics and supplies. Who better than the
establishment would know that among the entities in the settled
plains, which one can provide these services to the warring Taliban?
Instead of making dormant militant groups a future asset against
regional rivals, we need to deal with them firmly in order to save our
country.

The faulty paradigm of strategic depth has to be replaced immediately
with an alternative foreign policy free of the establishment’s
influence that relies on pulling regional powers with the economic
magnet rather than winning their support through planted
troublemakers. The current strategy has been tested time and again,
and has miserably failed over the past three decades, bringing not
only humiliation and shame to Pakistan, but also harm to the people
and the economy. A quick way would be to completely halt all the
covert operations in the region, give the political government a free
hand to deal with international and regional actors, and allow the
economy to be viewed through a lens that sees manufacturing and
industrial development as key to progress. Absence of terrorists and
terrorism is going to bring long lost foreign investment to our
courtyard.

We all are to benefit from this progress, not the civilian leadership
alone. The establishment must understand, and accept this.

The writer is a freelance columnist and independent blogger. She can
be reached at marvi at marvisirmed.com