Speech before the Los Angeles World Affairs Council on January 27, 2000:
His Excellency Jehangir Karamat
President, Los Angeles World Affairs Council members, ladies and gentlemen:
It is truly a great pleasure to be here and an honor to be able to address such a distinguished audience. I know this is a most prestigious forum and I would like to thank you for inviting me. I'd like to especially thank Shezad Rokerya for making it possible for me to be here and for coordinating my visit.
From the list outside I know that there have been many eminent speakers here. I just heard the list of people who are coming and, to say the least, I am quite overawed by the people who have been here and who are coming here. I hope I can also stimulate your thoughts as I try to give you an insight into Pakistan and South Asia. Unlike most of your speakers, I don’t have a special field of interest or expertise—I’m neither a scholar nor an intellectual--just a retired soldier, but in the last part of my service, about ten years, I did interact with my own and with other governments because of the ranks and appointments and it’s that experience that I’m going to draw on as I talk to you about South Asia and Pakistan.
I know that a lot of people here know South Asia very well, but for those who don’t, South Asia with its seven countries is home to well over a billion people. Nine hundred million-plus live in India alone, which is the biggest country in South Asia and without a doubt the primary military power in South Asia. Pakistan, with its one hundred-thirty million, people is the second-biggest country in South Asia. South Asia’s ancient history, of course, is of civilizations, which flourished along the river valleys. The rivers, which come down from the Himalayas, flow to what is now Pakistan and get into the Arabian Sea. Those civilizations, their ruined cities, have been uncovered. It was a very flourishing civilization at that time. Alexander marched his armies through what is now Pakistan, and Islam came to the subcontinent from across the Arabian Sea in the 7th century. That is when it started the clash with Hinduism, which is the thousand-year old religion of India. Then came a series of invasions over hundred of years by Central Asian Muslim conquerors. They left their mark on India and Pakistan through the revenue systems, the administrative systems, the roads, the famous routes like the Silk Route and other sea coastal rivers, and overland trade routes, which flourished in those days.
Then we’ve had British colonial rule. Its legacy is the vast road and rail network in the country. In the subcontinent, the cities, the armies basically evolved from the British model: an administrative system, a judicial system, a taxation and revenue system, and above all, from the rivers a very well-developed canal irrigation system, which makes agriculture one of the major activities in Pakistan and India.
In 1947 India and Pakistan became independent states. India got liberated from the British and Pakistan got liberated from the British and from the specter of Hindu domination. So Pakistan became a South Asian state whose reason for existence was intentionally and explicitly religion: Islam. I think the other example of such countries are Israel and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan’s creation was no accident, not a colonial invention. It was very intentional.
I'd like to tell you that I was in Detroit just before coming here where they had the premier of a film on the life of Mr. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the man who fought for and created Pakistan. It very vividly describes and shows the struggle for Pakistan and the violence, which accompanied partition. Unfortunately, Mr. Jinnah died just a year after partition and Pakistan could not really benefit from his visionary leadership--and that’s when we needed his leadership the most. India and Pakistan, the two biggest countries in South Asia, have a history of shared experiences, historical experiences and they also have shared values, social values. But post-partition, their experiences as independent countries have been totally different from each other. Confrontation over unresolved border disputes has defined the differences, overshadowed the similarities, which existed. So the differences are much more defined; attitudes have hardened.
The divide over religion, of course, predates partition. It existed even before that. In 1962, after a defeat, in fact, a humiliating defeat in a border war with China, India got closely aligned with the former Soviet Union, and this alignment with the Soviet Union—India’s alignment with the Soviet Union, continued through the 60s, 70s and 80s. Pakistan, on the other hand, remained a U.S. ally throughout that period. Post-1965, it also developed a linkage with China and a relationship, which strengthened and endures until today. Pakistan, in fact, was a member of the U.S.-sponsored CENTO and pacts in the 50s.
Now, as far as Pakistan’s ideological moorings are concerned they lie firmly in the commonwealth of Muslim nations, the Muslim Ummah. It is a conspicuous and very active member of the Organization of Islamic countries and, as one of the most populous Muslim countries in the world, it does champion the cause of Islam in a big forum. Also, in the fifty years of Pakistan’s existence Islam has been on the upsurge worldwide as an international political force. In this period, Islam has been directly or indirectly involved in major events in the world, like mass migrations, war, peace, political development, political disintegration, ethnic cleansing, border disputes, destruction of mosques, civil wars, revolutions, and many other events. Geographically, these events encompass a vast area stretching from Palestine to the Philippines, Indonesia to Iraq, Kuwait to Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia, Chechnya, from Bangladesh to Bosnia, Kosovo, Morocco and Turkey--a very vast area and a significant part of the globe. Of course, Kashmir, India and Pakistan are part of this area.
Pakistan, with other Islamic countries, has been involved or concerned in some way with many of these events. And here I just recall some of these events the way they affected Pakistan. When India and Pakistan got partitioned, almost 11.5 million people were involved in the migration. There was horrendous violence, which accompanied that migration. Again, when the former Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, we had 3.5 million Afghan refugees crossing over into Pakistan in the period of 1979 to 1987. Then, in Sri Lanka, the violence, which continues today, was preceded by covert and then overt intervention and the same thing was repeated in the former eastern part of Pakistan, which led to the creation of what is now Bangladesh.
The unresolved Kashmir dispute, a border dispute with India, has led to three wars between India and Pakistan. The dispute could have been settled in accordance with the UN resolution which calls for a plebiscite in Kashmir or, even if the plebiscite couldn’t be held, a process of negotiations could have started or a peace process of some kind could have taken root, but this option has been closed because of the bloody ethnic cleansing that has been going on in Kashmir. Right now, over six hundred thousand Indian security forces are fighting the freedom fighters with many atrocities being committed in that area. In fact, the whole population in that area has been brutalized and totally alienated from the Indians.
With this as a background, there are two points that I want to make. First, with Islam as a powerful international political force with one-third membership of the United Nations from Muslim countries and a quarter of the world’s population being Muslim, Pakistan with its South Asian and West Asian linkages, is in a unique position to serve as a bridge between Islam and the West. It can interpret Islam as a moderate and enlightened religion for the rest, and it is significant that Pakistan has this capability. Unfortunately, sometimes all Muslims, particularly those in Pakistan and Afghanistan, are painted as extremists, fundamentalists and terrorists. This is not true, and this creates a divide, which need not exist. In fact, it leads to policies and pressures, which eventually turn out to be counter-productive. A more rational view of the reality on the ground needs to be taken.
Secondly, we need to understand the recent events in South Asia by more than a superficial understanding. Where do the roots of violence in Sri Lanka lie? What was the origin of this violence? Why is it continuing? We need to find out and we need to remember that the Islam-oriented resistance to the Russian aggression in Afghanistan was sponsored by the United States with Pakistan as its partner. The blowback from this long and successful struggle against the Soviet Union is the civil war--which is still raging in Afghanistan, the proliferation of drugs and weapons, of terrorists, and centuries of violence, which is still there and which is spreading. Most of these events are beyond the control of the states, which are involved.
Circumstances, and as I said the blowback from a long struggle in Afghanistan, has led to this situation. Here, however, I’d like to mention that even at its height, the violence in South Asia did not match the levels of violence in the heart of Europe and some parts of Africa in the very recent past. So what I’m saying is that we must not be led into believing that all this is happening in Pakistan all because of Pakistan, all because of the Taliban in Afghanistan. I’ve already described the vast area in which these events are taking place. It is a destablized region, and it is so destablized that events like last year’s fighting in Kargil, the northern part of Kashmir, and this yea’s highjacking of an Indian airline’s plane, these events can take place in a region which is basically destablized. The Taliban in Afghanistan now controls 90% of Afghanistan. They have disarmed the population. They’ve brought peace to the areas, which are under their control. They have a functional administration of sorts in a war-ravaged country. This is not a small achievement for people who thought that drugs were a legitimate source of revenue and for whom weapons are a way of life. I think it’s quite a remarkable achievement. The Taliban need to be understood, and interaction and not isolation and pressure is what is needed.
Pakistan has acted to moderate them and bring them into contact with the rest of the world. It is still doing that and is totally supportive of the UN measures calling for the resolution of the civil war in Afghanistan. Also, Pakistan, as a state, has never sponsored terrorism; it still does not. It has been, and is, a cooperative partner of the United States and the West in the fight against terrorism and drugs. So, policies of sanctions and pressures, which turn terrorists into heroes and seek to isolate countries, are not really understood by Pakistan. Pakistan has remained an ally of the United States, and it has remained an ally even after the body-blow it received in 1990 when economic and military aid was suddenly terminated once the U.S. objective in Afghanistan had been achieved. I think this event, more than anything else, forced Pakistan to reexamine its declining conventional deterrence and to look at other options to counter the growing imbalance with India.
Pakistan, in its own national interest, wants and works for an allied and cooperative relationship with the United States. I think there are many areas of convergence between the two countries, and these are the areas where we are working together. I might, however, mention that for Pakistan it’s the relations and linkages with Afghanistan, Iran, Central Asia, China and the Muslim world that are most important and a part of its historical heritage. These linkages predate partition and existing boundaries because ethnically similar populations straddle the borders with Afghanistan and Iran, and these populations have close interactions with each other in spite of formidable natural barriers, which separate them. On the other hand, on the border with India there are no natural barriers, it’s a very easy border to cross but there’s very little contact between the populations--hardly any.
Perhaps the most significant event in South Asia, a recent event, was India’s nuclear test in May 1998, and the series of missile tests it has carried out. Pakistan, already on the wrong end of a conventional military imbalance with India, was forced to respond. If it had not, then it would have been strategically [overwhelmed] and its security compromised. Now both India and Pakistan have established missile and nuclear programs and a sort of ugly deterrence exists. Pakistan, fully conscious of India’s size and power, has proposed a nuclear restraint regime and it has proposed unconditional talks. The proposal still stands.
Finally [I will give] a few words on the most recent event in South Asia--the military government in Pakistan. Without a doubt, this is a negative and retrograde step because nobody ever wanted democracy to be interrupted or terminated and I think this has happened because in the eleven years of uninterrupted democracy, since 1988, we have had five elected governments dismissed for incompetence and inability to govern. Political leaders simply could not rise above self-interest and instead of visionary policies they stayed in the morass of short-term, expedient policies. And it was not just the top leaders but all the politicians who sat silently in Parliament or in Cabinet while the government persisted in its follies.
The institutional response of the military in this period, since 1988, was one of consistent support to democracy. They gave advice, acted when it was their duty to do so but stayed in the background and out of the driving seat. They did this in spite of pressures to intervene, and their reluctance was most pronounced in the tenure of the last government, which was dismissed or overthrown. The politicians never understood this reluctance of the military to intervene, and they took this as a signal to reach out for total power at the cost of all institutions and finally in the final act, even ignored Pakistan’s national interests. This is by no means a situation unique to Pakistan because there have been governments in many other countries, and history is full of those examples, which have persisted in follies and continued with those follies until they were destroyed.
The result is today’s military government, a situation forced on the military and which they have now made the basis for far-reaching reforms. I say Aa situation forced on the military,@ because the military, I think, bent over backwards not to interfere with democracy or with the political government. It was only when, last October, the Prime Minister took the step of dismissing the army chief who was representing the country abroad without reason and then went further with a couple of steps which were totally unwarranted--it was that which led to the situation where the military had to act. In the introduction, a mention was made of the fact that I left a year earlier, in October 1998. I think it is linked to this event because at that point in time the political government had been repeatedly advised on what they were doing wrong and how they could arrest that trend. I’ve been their supporter, and last year I spoke here in Los Angeles supported the democratic government, spoke for them, and said that Pakistan needed time for democracy to mature, time for the government to start trusting the institutions, which had threatened it in the past. So it was something beyond anybody’s control, which has brought about the military government in Pakistan and it is now acting to carry out reforms. There is cynicism and there is impatience, which is not surprising given the past track record of military governments because they came in in almost similar situations and then stayed on for years and years.
Right now the requirement is for some correct strategic decisions to be taken in Pakistan. But before those decisions can be taken, the right environment has to be created, and this is what is now being done in Pakistan, the creation of an environment in which some strategic decisions can be taken to create a situation where democracy can come back. Pressures for time-tables and benchmarks for restoration of democracy--these demands, I think, can send wrong signals to the domestic environment, making the military’s task of reform impossible. Because within Pakistan the stream main political parties, whose leadership is somewhat discredited, need to reorganize their parties, need to bring in new leadership before democracy can return and pressures for time tables, for benchmarks, can send just the wrong signals because they will be looking at outside pressure to remove the military government rather than working to create the environment in which the military government can bring back democracy after carrying out reforms.
I think for once the long view needs to be taken of the situation in South Asia to correctly assess what kind of impact a strong politically stable and economically viable Pakistan would have on South Asia and I think it is this consideration and this vision, which should guide policies towards Pakistan. I’m glad to say that recent high-level visits and contacts with the West are leading to this understanding. We’ve had France resuming military exports, the United Kingdom has not gone beyond suspension from the Commonwealth, the high-level contacts with the United States have been resumed, China has been very supportive, the Islamic world has been very supportive, and already a steadying influence within Pakistan is discernable. Organizational and management decisions and inherent strength of the military have put competent teams in place. We have economic advisory teams, foreign affairs advisory teams, a national reconstruction bureau and so on, and very slowly institutional development has started.
Institutions in the last decade had been weakened and in some cases destroyed, because the political government saw the survival in weakened institutions. This is something, which is now being put right. Time has been gained from international aid agencies to turn the economy around by focusing on the financial energy and agricultural sectors. Some band-aid type of measures have been put in place, like import substitution policies, interest rates lowered to attract investment and already they have the signs of policies on Afghanistan, Kashmir and issues like the CTBT [Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty] emerging based on a consensus, a consensus by which a deliberate process of debate has been started within the country. In fact, the kind of participation that is now there in government has never been there before in democracy.
I could go on and talk about the military government, but I’m neither its spokesman nor its defender. I believe in democracy and civilian control over the military, and this is the main reason why I had problems with the government. I’d like to believe that this is what it’s all about--a final return to representative government and a continued commitment to the market economy, but only time and patience can do that and it’s only time and performance which will tell us what is happening. Pakistan has shown tremendous resilience as a state in its fifty-year history of turmoil and adversity. It has survived and it is functional. Doomsday scenarios of a breakup and divisions within its structures are either propaganda or misplaced visions.
To conclude, I would say that there is no doubt that the events in South Asia and West Asia have had a negative effect on economies, on governments, on political stability and internal security. The military government is out of sync with the rest of the world because in this complex environment where economies have to be tackled you need global contacts and so on. It’s not quite within the capability of the military to handle these complex situations, and that is why in Pakistan we don’t have martial law, we have a government of selected military people, civilian experts and technocrats who are running the country today.
As I said, a vast region has been stabilized. We have a drug, weapons and terrorist problem, and the three are usually interlinked. This is a spin-off from the long years of violence, civil wars, revolution and freedom struggles, which are continuing. It is these two basic problems in South Asia, Afghanistan and the Kashmir dispute, which need to be resolved if the environment is to be changed and if we can divert resources, scarce resources, from military spending into human development sectors. With missiles and nuclear weapons now being developed there is a need, a dire need, to resolve disputes and work for restraint regimes leading to peace.
The present military government in Pakistan with its agenda for reform--and you might find this difficult to understand--but the present military government with its agenda for reform should be seen as a necessary interruption of democracy forced on Pakistan by circumstances beyond its control and it should be seen as a part of an overall trust towards eventual stable democracy and a market economy. The priorities of the military government right now are: strengthening of all institutions, eradication of corruption and documenting the economy, economic and fiscal reforms, and above all, a devolution of power from the federal government to provincial government and down to grass roots level. This is what they’re doing right now and it is only time, which can tell how successful they’re going to be or which way Pakistan is going to go. But right now the direction is pretty much clear.
Thank you.