Train to Pakistan

Pakistan is at an interesting point. Gen. Musharraf declares an emergency purportedly to deal with Taliban loyalists in the north, but spends much of his strength in hammering down the judges in the south. Bhutto barks appropriately, but where is the bite? US makes a big noise about democratic elections and holding back the funds, and in the same breath, also says that no military aid will be cut - well, military is the one imposing the emergency for which you are threatening to cut the funds.

Looking back for the past six months, it is clear that the Taleban or Al Queda is re-grouping in Afghanistan and North Pakistan. They have been keeping the NATO and Pakistani forces busy with 'attack weakpoints and withdraw on retaliation" and more importantly, they have also won skirmishes against Pakistani forces. This is, in part, an unfortunate result of US moving to Iraq immediately after Afghan war and 'outsourcing' the war to NATO and Pakistani forces. Lack of focus on dismantling Al Queda and Taliban is coming back to haunt us.

It is the tragedy of a people who are so sick of corrupt and in-ept politicians that they place their faith in the army. Though the lesson is that no matter how bad the politicians are, the very fact that they have to face the people for a mandate every so many years makes them behave while a dictator can make pacts of his personal convinience. Moreover, this makes the dictator, and in effect a country, a puppet in the hands of those powers who grant the dictator's survival. Saddam and Iraq are not isolated cases in study.

So, Musharraf had to step up to help the US after 9/11. It ensured a US blessing for his dictatorship and also netted chunks of aid that could be judiciously spent to strengthen his public approval. He realized that if fundamentalist are given leeway, they could seriously undermine his power. However, the counter-check was that many elements in the Pakistani army have fundamentalist sympathies, thanks to the Kashmir quagmire. Furthermore, its difficult to motivate an army whose motto is "Faith, Piety, to strive in the path of Allah" to fight against those who claim to serve Allah. But as long as he did a good job of temporizing and maintained the illusion of action, he was safe. The US could not publicly chide him for non-action because then they would have to satisfy their public by stepping in and taking charge - something they couldn't afford with the Iraq quagmire sucking in all their resources.

In all fairness, Musharraf did do a good job of attacking the extremists in the south where the populace doesn't support fundamentalism. But his failure in the extremist stronghold of north is the keynote speaker of the day. Even today, when the rest of the country is clamped down, the northern tribals are continuing their activities with relative impunity. And that is the failure which will hurt everyone.

For Pakistan, the danger of islamicizing a country is looming in closer and closer. For India, the more hardline the Pakistani society becomes, the more difficult it is to deal with. And Kashmir is one of the gripes of Pakistani fundamentalists, though maybe not of Al Queda or Taleban. For US and Europe, the danger is distant. But moreover, if Pakistan goes over, it is a loss of face in a war and also a loss of an ally in a key geographic location.

The judiciary revolt is inconvinient for everyone at this juncture - US, Musharraf, Bhutto - as it throws off their finely scripted play of democracizing Pakistan while retaining power, off balance. And without solid political backing, or public backing, the revolt is likely to fizzle out in face of a military crackdown. But the way things ravel over the next couple of days is critical. Surely there is going to be minimal open action, most is going to be in terms of power deals brokered behind closed doors. Though the question that remains is that if the political deal and peace is US-brokered, will it be independent to think of Pakistani interests solely? And if not, will a public image of a government "sold-out" to the US strengthen the case of the fundamentalists?

The question is perhaps, why is US so scared that if democracy runs it's course in Pakistan (and other Middle East countries) it may throw up a fundamentalist regime and perhaps the regime's interests will not align with those of the US. Musharraf was 'good' for everyone - US, Europe, India but no guarantee that a strong democracy won't be the same. After all either form of government will see fundamentalism as a threat to it's survival. As of today's history, constructing artifical democracies has hurt more than helped it. Maybe its time to try "let go"?