WILL EGYPT GO THE PAK WAY?

Egypt is in turmoil. A dictator is on his way out and there is great uncertainty and fear about what will happen after him. At one end of the spectrum are those who believe that after decades of oppressive rule democracy will triumph. At the other extreme we have those who see Islamists claiming the country after the dust settles.

A stable, secular, non-confrontationist democracy is what the whole world would want to see not just in Egypt but in the rest of the Arab world. But is Egypt headed that way, or is it more likely to land on the slippery slope that Pakistan finds itself on today?

In July 2010, the Pew Global Attitudes Project Report about Pakistan came up with disturbing figures about the extent to which Pakistan had become radicalised, thanks in no small measure to the ideological and political thrust imparted by its leaders, military and civil. I had then written a piece on its findings which were largely ignored since they did not fit in with the picture that some analysts had been painting. It was evident from the report that Pakistan slide into religious extremism was real and dangerous. A few months later, Punjab Governor Salman Taseer’s assassination by his body guard for opposing the blasphemy law -- and the reactions that followed -- rudely awoke everyone save a few die hard romantics, and raised real worries about Pakistan imploding and plunging into a dangerous and violent Islamist abyss.

What does Pew tell us about Egypt? Surprisingly, there are some striking similarities with Pakistan that are almost ominous. That being so, are we right in assuming that the demonstrators who have taken over Tahrir Square in Cairo are actually looking for a Western-style democracy? Or is the Muslim Brotherhood, believed by some to be the force behind the unrest, likely to succeed in turning the country into an ‘Only Islam’ state?

The first and extremely significant Pew finding is that an overwhelming 83% -- the highest in the world -- Pakistanis and Egyptians hold a ‘very unfavourable’ opinion of the United States. Understandable in the case of Pakistanis because of America’s invasion of Afghanistan; but what has rankled the Egyptians so much? Does such a strong dislike for the US also translate – in conjunction with other factors – into some sort of a rejection of secular and friendly democracy too?

Some answers may lie in the figures that follow. Figures for Pakistan are in brackets.

• Role of Islam 95% (88) of those who feel Islam is playing large role in politics think it is good, while 80% (79) of those who think it is playing a small role think it is bad. Islam must play a much bigger role.

• Traditional Muslim practices 82% (82) favor stoning adulterers to death; 77% (82) favour chopping off hands of robbers; 86% (76) want death for those who leave Islam.

• Struggle between modernisers and fundamentalists Only 31% (44)see a struggle between modernisers and fundamentalists and 59% (28) of those side with fundamentalists. Pakistanis surprise positively here.

• Democracy 59% (44) prefer democracy to other types of government; 22% (15) believe under certain conditions a non-democratic government can be preferable.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was once a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and knows the dynamics first hand, thinks it is inevitable that the the organisation will win the September election and that the leaderless, secular democratic forces that have swept one tyranny aside could easily succumb to another. Fareed Zakaria, on the other hand, is convinced that fears of an Egyptian theocracy are vastly overblown and that democracy could work: ”The nation has seen both Mubarak and Iran’s Mullahs and wants neither.” Had Zakaria looked further eastwards, he may have been less sanguine: Pakistan has seen both Iran’s Mullahs and Afghanistan’s Taliban but is still heading straight down that Islamist path.

Are theocracy and democracy completely mutually exclusive as many seem to suggest? Are they really two opposite poles in geo-political and geo-strategic terms? If they were, the US would have not been backing dictators in areas and countries where democracy was, and remains, in danger of seamlessly slipping into unacceptable hands, to say the least. Sure it has made many blunders in the process. But what's the guarantee that the alternatives would have been better for the world?

Pakistan, lest we forget, is a democracy. But it is not secular, has never been. On the contrary, it has been sliding down the Islamist slope for decades and today finds itself firmly in its grasp, future bleak, its very survival in question. When a closet Talibani like Imran Khan, who openly supported handing over Swat Valley to the Taliban and their medieval system of justice, admits to Barkha Dutt that the “situation in Pakistan in not just bad; it is much worse,” little room is left for doubt about what we are facing.

India, bereft of a strategic vision and thereby plans to impact other nations in its supreme national interest, often fails look beyond the idea of democracy, as if it is an end in itself. Its reactions to the developments in Eqypt are, not surprisingly, marked by benign disinterest befitting a non-player who wants to occupy an imaginary and meaningless high moral ground that no other nation has any time for.

But the Arab world, the West and the US have their ears to the ground. They know that the Tahrir Square quake has the potential to shake, disturb and disrupt their world and the global order like nothing has in the past few decades. Caught almost totally by surprise and rattled by nightmare scenarios, they are frenetically trying to figure out ways to minimise its ill effects.

Egypt may well go Pakistan's way over time, with a domino-effect. If that happens, India too will be impacted directly and will not be able to afford the luxury of practicing inertia-driven non-involvement that it has so got used to. Democracy is only a form of government; when analysing and dealing with potential threats, it does not lend itself to being used either as a shield or a missile.
'

AF-PAK: THE TIDE IS TURNING BUT INDIA HAS NO PLAN

"There is a rising tide of Islam around the world." This is what Newsweek editor Fareed Zakaria said just a year ago. America's armed opposition to Islamic fundamentalists, he noted then, had "made this whole enterprise feel very much like a clash of civilizations, and a violent one at that."

Has anything dramatic happened, unknown to many of us, in the last 365 days days or so to suggest that the "entire terrain of the war on terror has evolved dramatically...and the tide is turning", as Zakaria is saying now without citing anything really new in support?

Last year, acknowledging that things were going badly for US troops in Afghanistan, Zakaria had outlined a strategy by which the situation could be salvaged there by the US. Making a distinction between the Al Qaida and the Taliban, what he had suggested then in sum was that the US should talk to what he called the "good" Taliban, cut a deal and hand Afghanistan to them after Al Qaida was defeated. The "good" Taliban, according to him, were those had no links with the Al Qaida which was waging a war against the US, did not advocate global jihad and wanted Islamic rule locally only.

A year later, with no improvement in the ground situation in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama has authorised sending of 30,000 additional troops there and has expanded the war inside Pakistan by increasing the areas covered by drone attacks. But, for some reason, Zakaria has not only completely de-linked the Taliban from the Al Qaida but also wants us to swallow the lie that "jihadist ideology has wrapped itself around a genuine ethnic struggle in which Pashtuns feel that they are being dispossessed by rival groups"! The enemy, as Zakaria sees now through the eyes of the US, is the much weakened Al Qaida alone.

If this line represents the latest US thinking, then India has much to worry about. The tide is turning but against it: America is looking for a way to get out of Afghanistan at the earliest. To do that honourably, it seems to be willing to hand over Afghanistan back to the Taliban and give generous doles to Pakistan, if the latter guarantees that it will not allow the territories of both nations to be used by the Al Qaida, or any other group, against the interests of the US, as they were before 9/11. As long as this Laxman Rekha is not crossed, as far as the US is concerned, jihadis can keep doing what they want in Af-Pak, Kashmir and the rest of India.

Unfortunately for India, some of its own analysts and thinkers also believe that a 'strong and stable' Pakistan is just what India needs, and that the thorn that it has become can be turned into a flower if India gives whatever concessions are needed to enhance the credibility and power of Pakistan's government. One has to daft or dishonest to even imagine that the all-pervasive hold of Pakistan's military is going to be weakened in this manner and that any civilian in power there is going to be in a position to pursue an India policy that conflicts with the one being relentlessly pursued by its military since 1947. As Musharraf admitted with misplaced pride, Pakistan exists as a state only because of its military and the ISI which - we tend to forget - is a powerful arm of the military itself. Its politicians and civilian officials have been and will be effectively subordinate to the military. The Army Chief is going to remain Pakistan's most powerful man and the supreme authority no one can overrule, as far as national security and India policy is concerned. The military, as is well known, is founded and grounded in a rabid anti-India mindset that cannot be shed for ideological and practical reasons by its leadership.

Our leaders and policy makers surely must know all this. Why, then, are they intent on giving fake lollipops to unsuspecting Indians directly by making hapless pacifist noises and indirectly through elitist tamashas like 'Aman ki Asha'? Why does our economist PM Dr Manmohan Singh not get himself armed with some hard professional advice and stop bleating that India can do nothing at all except talk to Pakistan?

Is it not matter of grave concern that it has taken American Senator Larry Pressler, to voice disappointment that India is not raising a voice about what's happening in Afghanistan, and warn the country that once the US leaves that country, "India is going to have on its border a highly armed loose canon in Pakistan, a rogue state whose government is not what we espouse or support. A rogue Pakistan on steroids of US money"? With Afghanistan back in Pakistan's pocket, Pakistan's military will have at its disposal thousands of jubilant jihadis who it will redirect to achieve victory in Kashmir and, at the same time, create mayhem in the rest of India. Let us not forget that Pakistan has been assiduously preparing the ground for greater jihadi intervention in India. Musharraf, in an interview to Karan Thapar, repeatedly spoke of the role of the LeT in protecting the interests of Indian Muslims. More recently, the way Hamid Mir twisted the reaction of Shiv Sena to Shahrukh Khan's idiotic statements, to appropriate for Pakistan the role of his friend and protector of India's Muslims, shows that, behind fake civil facades, its anti-India agenda remains unabated. The objective of luring more and more Indian Muslims to terror by creating disaffection in them against India is not limited to Pakistan's military alone.

The US, no longer rich enough to afford a long, costly war in Afghanistan, much less expand it into Pakistan where it must end if the war on terror has to be decisively won, is likely to take an extremely narrow and short-term view, and get out, claiming a pyrrhic victory. Is any effort being made by India to tell the US that the reprieve that it may get will be only temporary and that a gun in jihadi hands can and will be turned devastatingly towards the US again at an opportune moment with much greater planning and preparation than before 9/11? Is India even thinking of effectively countering what for it will become a far graver threat than ever before?

Tragically for India, nothing of the sort seems to be happening. As even Barkha Dutt is discovering now, India has no long-term plan to deal with Pakistan or terrorism; it is being made up as we go along. Can anything be more shocking? More than 20 years after Pakistan unleashed terror and despite the loss of the lives of thousands of sons of India, no one in the government knows what India must do to put an end to it quickly and decisively. No other large nation has ever allowed a much smaller one to bleed it so effortlessly at such low cost for such a long time. And since no workable, result-oriented strategy has even been thought of, some zombies are still talking of a 'nuanced' approach while our pacifist and strategy-blind PM stutters from one mistake to another in total darkness. Talks, as MJ Akbar notes, are only about civilians pretending to be civil, not about finding solutions. Worse, such talks, rather than discouraging or controlling jihadis, are actually going to motivate them to fight on with renewed vigour.

This mindless non-strategy is going to blast in India's face if the US does leave Afghanistan with the Taliban intact and Pakistan strong. I can hear Pressler saying: "You have been warned". He and others can keep shouting. If India keeps pitting disinterested, status-quo-loving, uninformed civilians against focused, result-driven, professional generals who rule Pakistan, defeat is guaranteed. No one has ever won a war without a plan; these guys don't even know how to make one.

PAKISTAN'S LONG MARCH TO CHAOS CONTINUES

Nawaz Sharif and, as per some reports, his brother Shahbaz Sharif have been put under house arrest by Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari in a desperate effort to ensure that the Long March that the duo had started does not bring the country's capital to a halt. This long march will, in all likelihood, end in some sort of a compromise settlement between Nawaz Sharif and Zardari. Notwithstanding how it plays out, the harsh fact that cannot be escaped is that this standoff will strengthen and hasten the long march of the Taliban to Islamabad and the rest of Pakistan.

One would have expected that in the wake of the terror attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore, all moderate mainstream politicians would come together to face the challenge that Pakistan faces from the Islamic radicals who have already overrun large parts of the country. That is what they had done after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and to remove Gen Musharraf as President. But no, they seem to have learnt no lessons from the mess they have been making right since the creation of the country. That feudal, tribal mindset is too deeply ingrained.

Zardari has been candidly admitting that his country is afflicted by the cancer of terrorism and that it is in danger of being run over by the Taliban. When the President of a country is alive to the grave danger his country faces, a reminder of which was graphically given in the Lahore terror attack, then it is but natural to expect that he will show a sense of responsibility and an understanding of his role as President in these difficult times whose reverberations are likely to be felt for a very long time. Unfortunately, he has not only been unable to shake free of the politics of blatant deceit that got him to the President's office but has now got into a war of petty political vendetta against the very Nawaz Sharif with whom had joined hands earlier.

The immediate provocation to the present crisis is the decision of the Musharraf-appointed judges of the Supreme Court to declare Nawaz Sharif ineligible to contest elections and also declare null and void the election of his younger brother, Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, leading to the fall of his government and imposition of Governor's rule. There are reports that the Army, taking advantage of the situation, is planning to stage a coup. But, that possibility is remote, notwithstanding the noises that are emanating from different quarters.

For one, the current fight is between two of Pakistan's most powerful politicians and not between the military and the civilian government. Things have not deteriorated between Zardari and Kiyani to the extent they had between Musharraf and Sharif in the backdrop of Musharraf's misadventure in Kargil without keeping Sharif in the loop. In fact, it appears that even otherwise Gen Kiyani is already calling the shots. Imran Khan had said as much a few days back. The present crisis has made the General's position even stronger. Secondly, the US is now monitoring Pakistan closely almost in real-time, and holds all the cards too, with Pakistan now an economic basket case and with US forces in Afghanistan. Therefore, Kiyani cannot afford to take over unless the US gives him a green signal which it is not going to, at least for now.

Zardari has clearly bitten more than he can chew. But, given his great manipulation skills, it is inconceivable that he would have precipitated such a crisis unless he was dead sure of the support of the US. Such dangerous games cannot be played without very strong anchors. One thing needs to be understood: Zardari, no matter how dishonest he may be, is clearly a "dove" among hawks. In a sea of Punjabis, he is the face of a moderate Sindh. For the US, he is therefore the one valuable asset that it would not like to lose in its efforts to contain hard line and pro-Taliban elements in the Pakistani establishment, including its military.

That is the main reason why there will no coup in Pakistan, at least in the near future. That is also why, unless this crisis takes an unexpectedly dramatic turn, Zardari is not going to lose his job. That is perhaps why he has dug in his heels. He will give in, there is no doubt, but will not "surrender" to the pressure tactics of Nawaz Sharif. Also, both will agree to a deal brokered not between them but for them by Washington. Hillary Clinton has already spoken to both the warring 'lords'; Richard Holbrooke has been on the ball too, for quite sometime.

So, where is Pakistan already? On the one side, the Taliban are less than 90 miles from Islamabad, with a demonstrated capability to strike at will anywhere in the Pakistan still under the control of the federal government. On the other side is the United States, which has appropriated the role of a "super-government" that is the final arbiter of all important internal affairs of the country. A truly united and independent Pakistan has already passed into history. That Pakistan exists only in the minds of those who foolishly think that a few nukes, the ISI and a large military are enough to define nation-state of Pakistan and mark its independence.

A solution to the present crisis will be found. There is no choice. Pakistani leaders may not realise how high the stakes are and how foolishly they are ruining their country, but the US does, at least partially. It will keep Zardari in business for the foreseeable future and will accommodate the Sharif brothers too. No matter what the solution, no matter who loses more face or less, the stark fact is that this crisis will further erode the credibility of the Pakistani state and of its mainstream non-Islamic institutions, including democracy.

This is just what the radical Islamists in the Army, the ISI and other institutions of the state want. They are simply not programmed to live in peace with themselves and with Pakistan's size. They want to usurp Afghanistan and Kashmir, destroy India and be in the vanguard of the jehad that seeks to establish Islamic rule over the whole world. They want the US out of Afghanistan, for which they will try every trick in the book to force it to cut a deal with the artificially created "good" Taliban, as Fareed Zakaria calls the 'benign' elements who he believes want to wantonly behead people within Pakistan only and cause no harm to the US and others.

Pakistan's Long March to chaos continues unchecked. Whichever way one looks at it, one cannot shake the feeling that events are all moving towards an inevitable and bloody climax that will profoundly impact the future of the whole world. India needs to ready itself for the developments which will effect it, both before and after that flashpoint. For that, its leaders will have to do more than mindlessly keep saying that India is "worried" about the developments in that country and parroting that "a strong and stable Pakistan" is essential for the region.

UPDATE

The crisis has blown over. Nawaz Sharif has won. Zardari has given in. After a late night meeting between Army Chief Kiyani and Prime Minister Gilani, the government has ordered the reinstatement of former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Iftikhar Chaudhary and other judges who were sacked by Musharraf. He will take charge on March 21. Section 144 has also been lifted and arrested activists are being released. The disqualification of Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif by the court will be reviewed. The Long March has been called off by a jubilant Sharif. The Army, as I had assessed, has remained in the barracks.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Readers may also read:
1. Zakaria's Afghanistan strategy: salvage or surrender?
2. All cylinders on fire: where is Pakistan heading?
3. Attack on Sri Lankan cricketers: no room for pretence now

ZAKARIA'S AFGHANISTAN STRATEGY: SALVAGE OR SURRENDER?

Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria believes, as do almost all analysts, that America's war in Afghanistan is not going well. Almost all trends, he says, are moving in the wrong direction but it is not a quagmire yet. To salvage the situation, he thinks that US policy needs to be "overhauled in four steps, each more complicated than the last".

The first of these steps outlined by Zakaria in an article in the Newsweek is the moving of the emphasis away from aggressive and punitive operations towards what the Indians calls the "winning the hearts and minds of the people" approach while simultaneously getting local forces to take on an increasing role in conducting operations. The second step is the strengthening of the Afghan government and increasing its legitimacy among the people by holding elections, reaching out to tribal leaders etc. There is not much to argue about the merits of these two basic steps.

But Zakaria steps into a veritable minefield with the last two steps which have the potential of making America end up leaving the region a far more dangerous place than it was before 9/11.

"Talk to the Taliban", says Zakaria, and "make a distinction between Al Qaida and Taliban". It is the Al Qaida which needs to be defeated to prevent terror attacks on the US. As far as the Taliban are concerned, essentially what Zakaria is saying is that the US should cut a deal with elements of the Taliban who have no links with the Al Qaida, effectively hand over Afghanistan back to them and withdraw its troops from that country.

Zakaria also believes that the rising tide of radical Islam is a reality about which not only can nothing be done, but it should not even concern the US because not all Islamists advocate global jihad and most Taliban want Islamic rule locally only. In support of these somewhat specious arguments, Zakaria highlights the fact that no Afghan has participated in any significant level in any global terrorist attack over the last ten years. Using the same line of reasoning, he supports the recent deal that the Pakistan government has struck in the Swat valley as an effort to divide the camps of Islamists between "those who are violent and those who are merely extreme". It is these "extreme" Islamists, it must be added, who were responsible for killing and beheading Pakistani journalist Mosa Khankel just after they signed the peace deal.

If Afghan nationals have not been involved in global - that term does not include India - terror attacks, it is not because they are concerned only with a share of the spoils and a measure of local power. It is because decades of war and ruin have ensured that there are very few educated Afghans living in the West. Therefore, picking suitable and motivated operatives to successfully carry out terror attacks in the West is virtually impossible. Afghans may not have been the visible face of global terror but it must be remembered that they provided the logistic and training bases that made it possible.

The last step suggested by Zakaria to ensure a lasting solution is to "pressure Pakistan" into dismantling jihadist networks, and to get India and Afghanistan to respond with concessions to ease regional tensions. That is another way of saying that India, which he believes has been "bled at very low cost" by Pakistan in Kashmir, should accept what will appear to be the victory of terror, and that Afghanistan should accept being treated almost as a notional nation whose purpose is to provide Pakistan the "strategic depth" that it has been seeking in its territory. That will happen in any case if the Taliban take control of that country again.

Would America want Afghanistan to revert back to the same conditions it was in before 9/11, minus the Al Qaida? If Zakaria's formula is followed, Pakistan, the epicenter of the terror that has been unleashed regionally and globally for decades, will again get to keep Afghanistan and also score some sort of a victory against India over Kashmir! And that handsome reward, in conjunction with the dismantling of jihadist networks that exist in Pakistan, will, as per Zakaria's assessment, ensure everlasting peace and brotherhood in the region and the world.

Also, since there is an un-checkable rising tide of radical Islam all over the world that actually does not threaten the world, Zakaria seems to suggest that the US should not be concerned if the whole of Pakistan is run over by "extreme" Islamists. All that it needs to do is to ensure that they keep the barrels of their AKs pointed towards their own people "who will weary of radical Islam quickly" as Islamists "lack the answers to today's problems". Can that ever be realistically done over time?

In the end, says Zakaria, it will be America's most powerful weapon, "a worldview that can satisfy the aspirations of modern men and women", that will defeat the Islamists, including the Taliban, not its military might or the combined will and efforts of other nations.

Zakaria should have known that aspirations of men and women stuck in a medieval time machine are not the same as of those who live in the 'decadent' West. For radical Islamists, their time machine is divine, questioning which means swift death. In any case, America's worldview has been on view for many decades. How come we are still witnessing the rise and sustenance of the radical Islam that should have never have risen in the first place, if Zakaria is right?

Zakaria's whole argument is based on the flawed premise that most radical Islamists are concerned only with petty local issues and not global jihad. They have to be concerned with those issues in any case, but the gaze of many is beyond the horizon and those of the remaining will quickly shift there too, when the conditions are right. Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, a Delhi based Islamic scholar, says that the ideology of jihadists is that "that Islam is a political system and that it is the duty of of all Muslims to establish the political rule of Islam in the world". He also says that a large number of Muslims have taken to violence to achieve this objective thinking it to be their ticket to paradise; even if they cannot eliminate non-Islamic rule, they can at least destabilise it and pave the way for Islamic rule.

This means that radical Islamists are not in it for the short haul. Bernard-Henry Levy, like many others, also believes that one can't distinguish between the Al Qaida and the Taliban. The artificial distinction that is being made by Zakaria between the "good" Taliban and the "bad" Taliban to justify the case for striking a deal with them and for rewarding Pakistan will not salvage the situation in Afghanistan. It will tantamount to surrender there. The defeat of both super powers to jihadists will be just the tonic they need to re-energise their jihad and attract more recruits globally into their holy war against America, the Great Satan, and other non-believers.

Whether we like it or not and no matter where in the world we live, we need to realise that we are all part of a historical battle between misguided radical Islam and not just the West but all the rest. Therefore, if the US cuts a deal with the Taliban and leaves Afghanistan with their ideology and AKs in place, there will not even be the illusion of peace. Attacks on India will continue without a pause and with renewed vigour. And, after a short hiatus which they will use to reorganise, re-group and re-strategise, the victorious jihadists will re-launch their global jihad with unprecedented ferocity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Readers may also read:
1. Understanding and defeating the ideology of terror
2. India needs to ready itself for a post-Pakistan scenario
3. Kashmir and Afghanistan are two sides of the same terror coin
4. Tackling Islamic terrorism: What India needs to understand