Dynamics Leading To Radicalisation: New Age Islam's Selection, 14 June 2016
New Age
Islam Edit Bureau
14 June 2016
• Dynamics Leading To Radicalisation
By Amna Ejaz Rafi
• Gender-Based Violence in Pakistan
By Hamza Siddiq
• Zulfikar Ali Bhutto & Sino-Pakistan Diplomacy
By Asif Ali Zardari
• Emerging Scenarios
By Zafar Iqbal Yousafzai
• Hiding Failure by Putting Squeeze
By Muhammad Jahanzaib
• Policy Dilemmas
By Touqir Hussain
• Our Vanishing Hindus
By Yaqoob Khan Bangash
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
Dynamics Leading To Radicalisation
By Amna Ejaz Rafi
14-Jun-16
Radicalisation is change in belief, feeling, or behaviour towards increased support for intergroup conflict. Terrorism is the worst outcome of radicalisation. People are not born radical; unjust practices, social or political alienation and personal experiences radicalise them. In the prevailing era, the phenomenon of radicalisation is widespread. The developing as well as the developed world is encountering irrational wrath of radical forces. Some view abject poverty coupled with social or political isolation as prime causes of radicalisation, while there are also instances where the educated and the elite have also resorted to violence. In most of the cases, the radical has faced some form of unjust behaviour or discrimination that makes him susceptible to extreme views. The extremist being well aware of sensitivities of the deprived individual exploit the weaknesses of the system.
According to Marc Sageman Counter Terrorism Practitioner’s Radicalisation Model, the radicalisation process involves four stages: pre-radicalisation, self-identification, indoctrination, and extremism. In the pre-radicalisation stage, the individual lives an ordinary life and has not yet accepted the radical ideology. In the self-identification stage, the individual begins to explore the extremist ideology. In the indoctrination stage, adherence to radical views is intensified, usually under the direction of an ideological leader. Finally, in the extremism stage, the individual willingly accepts and carries out the assigned task. Therefore, an extremist can be indoctrinated to become a terrorist. The main propelling factors behind radicalisation could be public’s lack of trust in political leadership or institutions, unjust practices, social isolation and economic deprivation. Class differences like backward versus modern, illiterate versus civilised and staunch, religious versus open-minded polarise a society.
The conflict between various social classes is detrimental to societal peace and it hugely contributes towards radicalism. Unemployment is also a major factor behind young people’s frustration; many unemployed young people feel that they are left with no other option but to revolt. In a region like FATA, where radicalisation is at its peak, not many employment opportunities exist. Political and vested use of religion has prompted extremism. To completely eliminate radicalism, a holistic policy with focus on human security is required. This can be pursued through a de-radicalisation and rehabilitation strategy. The two-pronged policy should focus on preventing naive individuals from getting radicalised and those who are radicalised to be rehabilitated. Education can play a significant role in this regard. The focus of education should be on nation state, citizenship, social and cultural harmony, individual and civic obligation and self-confidence. In addition, socio-economic equity is also an important factor in maintaining harmony at the societal level.
Radicalism is also promoted through regional conflicts. The prevalent environment is plagued with terrorism. While, on the other hand, the economic cooperation and regionalism has introduced a new trend in international politics. States through economic manoeuvring try to reinforce their ingress, and economic diplomacy and regionalism are the order of the day.
In view of the prevailing trends, South Asia is the least integrated region of the world. The region accounts for only three percent of world GDP, and nearly 40 percent of its inhabitants live on less than $1.25 per day. Besides, the region faces challenges of climate change and environmental degradation, whereas increased inequalities is another threat to region’s growth and prosperity. Pakistan-India bilateral disputes, the Cold War politics, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and terrorism have impacted the politico-security architecture of South Asia. In the context of Pakistan-India bilateral disputes, regional countries have failed to find amicable solutions. The antagonism and distrust continues to haunt the existing bilateral ties. As a result of failed ventures, extremist tendencies on both sides of the border have been reinforced.
China’s interest in the development of Gwadar is to secure its economic interests. China’s enhanced regional role is an optimistic move in the backdrop of economic incentives and regional integration. On the other hand, the regional players wary of China’s growth would try to limit China’s participation in Pakistan’s economic pursuits. This power game could prove to be detrimental for the regional peace. It may also reinforce the insinuations of mistrust among the regional countries.
To counter radical forces, the SAARC states need to be united against terrorism, ensure security and stability of the region, and reap the benefits of energy connectivity and cooperation. China-Pakistan Economic Corridor will constitute energy transfer and is central to the progress of the region. Regional integration projects like Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar, Central Asia South Asia, and Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India should also be pursued.
Amna Ejaz Rafi is an assistant research officer at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/14-Jun-16/dynamics-leading-to-radicalisation
---
Gender-Based Violence in Pakistan
By Hamza Siddiq
14-Jun-16
Recent news stories have been dominated with horrifying gender atrocities increasingly committed against women. A jirga (a tribal council) in Abbottabad ruled teenage girl be set ablaze for helping a friend elope. Last week, a 16-year old girl was murdered by her mother for marrying the man of her choice. Hundreds of women are killed in Pakistan each year in the name of honour. What is unusual about the latest reported case is that the crime was perpetrated not by a father, brother or uncle but by a woman — the victim’s mother. The abominable scale and ubiquity of the practice of honour killings was recently brought to attention by Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy’s award-winning film A Girl in the River: the Price of Forgiveness. While the director has done a marvellous job in bringing the issue to forefront, the reaction in Pakistan has been depressing. In many political circles, it was met with outright denial. Some people saw nothing wrong with the crime being highlighted in the film. Others dismissed it as simply another conspiracy against Pakistan. This clearly shows the challenges that Pakistan faces on issues highlighted by Obaid-Chinoy and Malala Yousafzai.
Gender-based violence is widespread in our society. It is the most serious and pervasive form of discrimination. Women form the majority of those living in poverty and are commonly denied access to health, education and income opportunities. They are exposed to various forms of violence and exploitation that remain largely unchallenged. There are various factors that contribute to gender-based violence including legal arrangements and socio-cultural norms. Alternate dispute settlement mechanisms such as Panchayat (a village council) and Jirga are widespread, particularly in rural and tribal areas. Their growth and power has been fuelled by weaknesses of our judicial systems that regularly fail to provide adequate means of justice to the poor. Such traditional arrangements, led by local chiefs or feudal lords, symbolise patriarchal mindset and regularly reinforce it by ordering murders and even rapes of women under the pretext of preserving ‘honour’. The latest burning of the teenage girl in Abbottabad is a case in point.
Violence against women can be best understood when contextualised in the wider social and cultural norms underpinning the Pakistani society. We live in a patriarchal culture where there are strict controls on female sexuality and mobility in public domains, restricting them to purely reproductive roles. Principles of inheritance and descent are patrilineal. This is a region with some of the lowest female labour participating rates in the world. This is a culture that values sons and dehumanises daughters. In a culture where cultural norms legitimise certain forms of violence and discrimination against women, how can we address the issue of gender violence?
“It’s our tradition,” one parliamentarian from Balochistan famously remarked when justifying the burying alive of some women in his province. Unfortunately, his argument resonates with the majority that perceives and justifies honour killings as cultural tradition. These traditions persist because they have been allowed to persist by the state, by the laws and by the clergy. Government has been reluctant to clamp down on religious extremist groups to preserve their vote bank. This covert support has had enormous implications for the fight against extremism and issues such as gender violence. Recently, the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) proposed its own women protection bill, recommending ‘a light beating’ for the wife if she defies the husband. Such regressive proposals seek to legalise violence against women on religious grounds. Following the proposal, the chairman of the CII drew fierce criticism, persuading many Pakistanis to rally for the council to be permanently disbanded. But given our patronage-based politics, the chairman remains protected and the council unchallenged.
The London School of Economics and Political Science recently launched a commission on gender, inequality and power to identify factors that hold women back. The findings highlight four social forces that contribute to inequality: media, the economic sphere, political opportunity and the legal profession. The report shows that these social spheres do not operate independently; rather, power imbalances in one sector ripple out into others. The idea of gender inequality cutting across different social spheres as highlighted in the report can illuminate our understanding of gender-based violence in our society. For example, while gender-based violence might be thought to be a concern primarily of law, lack of women in politics will mean less political will to tackle it. Our local parliament is infused with regressive and misogynist politicians where men carrying that mindset dominate and outnumber women.
When seeking models of social progress and gender equality, we do not need to look far away. Our very own former East Pakistan, present-day Bangladesh has made remarkable strides in achieving social progress and transformation. Despite having very low levels of per capita income and poor governance, Bangladesh’s performance on the social front has been impressive. It has seen decline in fertility rates, decline in maternal mortality along with decline in gender disparity despite having an illiberal and corrupt political system. Development practitioners and academics have increasingly sought to understand this paradoxical transformation. Local experts have identified women’s agency, amongst other factors, as a major force in driving social change. Women’s enhanced access to valued resources such as land, credit, paid work and education have led to remarkable improvement in social indicators. Bangladesh’s progress in social development has largely been driven by a vibrant civil society that prioritised women empowerment through promoting microfinance, entrepreneurship and contraception.
In terms of achieving social progress and gender equality, Pakistan has a long way to go. The fight against gender violence will require holistic and multidimensional solutions. Awareness is always the first step down a better path. Media is doing a fine job by bringing incidences of honour killings and domestic abuse to public attention. At community level, there is a need to challenge socio-cultural barriers that prevent women progressing. Investment in education and economic opportunities for women is paramount. At the state level, government must look beyond personal gains to ensure protection to women. Who dare defy the clerics? Currently, prosecution even in the most heinous cases has been rare. While it is heartening to see the Women Protection Bill passed by the Punjab government, such gestures have to be supported by a greater will for prosecution and implementation. In addition, community-led initiatives can be transformational as seen in the case of Bangladesh.
Hamza Siddiq holds a postgraduate degree in Anthropology and Development from the London School of Economics & Political Science. He is a lecturer of International Development for the University of London International Programme
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/14-Jun-16/gender-based-violence-in-pakistan
----
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto & Sino-Pakistan Diplomacy
By Asif Ali Zardari
June 13, 2016
Nearly over half a century after the establishment of diplomatic ties, China remains the greatest friend and ally Pakistan has known. With our alliance being forged during the height of the Cold War, there is one man I must credit above all others in fortifying and sustaining that relationship when it was at its most complex. He is the unsung hero of international politics and diplomacy, a man who never faltered in his devotion to democracy, equality and education. He was a man whose vision was decades ahead of its time and who serves as a towering figure of inspiration — the legendary Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. His legacy of developing strong relations with China lived through his daughter and my late wife, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto, and continues to live through his grandson, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. Today, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s actions have left a mark on the world that very few appreciate outside of Pakistan. When writing his last testament, he regarded his hard work in building ties with China as his greatest achievement in foreign policy for he had the foresight to appreciate that China would eventually support Pakistan in its venture to counter India’s nuclear monopoly in the subcontinent.
A reader may be led to ask as to what he did that led to the development of such a relationship with China that would later be described as “higher than the Himalayas, deeper than the oceans, stronger than steel, dearer than eyesight and sweeter than honey”. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was wise enough to realise that in the aftermath of the 1962 Sino-Indian war, Pakistani interests were clearly aligned with China and he moved to swiftly settle the Tran-Karakoram dispute in 1963 to ensure that a firm relationship was established. The Sino-Pakistani alliance was based upon much more than a common resentment of Indian encroachment; it was forged on the ideals of cooperation, mutual respect and trust. During Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s visit to Beijing in February 1972, he successfully negotiated an economic and military aid package, worth $300 million for Pakistan, and China also agreed to write off loans amounting to over $110 million. Through his diplomatic ingenuity, he took the centre stage when he facilitated the Sino-American diplomatic effort alongside Henry Kissinger. This effort directly led to President Richard Nixon’s visit to Beijing in February 1972 and resulted in China being recognised as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
The late Mao Zedong and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto personified the Sino-Pakistan alliance. The two statesmen were on very friendly terms — they were always able to make time to meet each other as is evident through the fact that Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was the last statesman Mao Zedong was photographed with. Imagine the progress Zulfikar Ali Bhutto would have made for the betterment of Pakistan and its allies such as China had he not been executed by the Ziaul Haq regime. General Zia was a man who sought to undo Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s life’s work. However, Benazir Bhutto, successfully continued her father’s legacy and secured an ever closer union with China when she was prime minister. She conducted two prominent state visits to China, including one which celebrated Mao Zedong’s 100th birth anniversary.
I sought to continue her work when I was elected president of Pakistan and further cement this relationship as a service to the country. Only history and the people of Pakistan can judge the success of my achievements in this regard. With the rise of militant extremism, it is clear that Pakistan is willing to take all necessary measures to ensure its sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as that of our ally, China. Cooperation is at the heart of our relationship and no extremist or non-state actor has the will to match our resolve. During my tenure as president, China continued to demonstrate that it is our most valuable ally when after one of the worst floods that hit Pakistan in 2010; it provided us with aid and assistance worth over $250 million. It was through the groundwork laid during my tenure that we now see investments worth $46 billion being announced for the Gwadar port and for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Our alliance has reached new heights as these investments and free trade agreements will work to ensure mutual prosperity. The CPEC will prove to be the economic ‘Great leap forward’ of this generation and will determine the success of our economy in the early 21st century.
The Sino-Pakistan bond has proven to be essential in the development of Pakistan. China continues to provide assistance to us in maintaining our essential infrastructure. Major projects have been launched as a result of China’s investments, including a Lahore-Karachi motorway, the further expansion of the Gwadar port and the construction of two 1,100MW nuclear reactors. Karachi and Gwadar provide for a strategic trade route from the Middle East and Europe to China through the new Silk Road. A well-maintained road linking Pakistan’s ports to China will ensure that the latter’s economy continues to grow. The people of Pakistan are eternally grateful to China’s genuine interest in seeing our nation prosper. Prosperity for Pakistan definitely entails prosperity for China. It is at this time that we must also look back with gratitude to legendary statespersons like Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto and Mao Zedong, which made this alliance possible.
Asif Ali Zardari is co-chairperson of the PPP and served as president of Pakistan from 2008 to 2013
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1121945/zulfikar-ali-bhutto-sino-pakistan-diplomacy/
----
Emerging Scenarios
By Zafar Iqbal Yousafzai
14-Jun-16
Will the transition of the Taliban and the Afghan government’s peace agreement made with Hizb-e-Islami in Afghanistan may help reduce the unity government’s frustration? The two-year term of the political agreement brokered by the US Secretary of State John Kerry between Dr Ashraf Ghani and Dr Abdullah Abdullah on September 21, 2014 to settle the dispute of presidential elections, and secondly, their administrative and constitutional matters regarding the Unity government is about to end in September 2016. Nevertheless, the government is still on the brink, and political spectrum is oblique due to internal differences and failure of Afghan peace process, which jeopardises the security situation as well.
President Ghani and Government Chief Executive Abdullah are not on the same page; they do not have agreement on most of the power-sharing formula. Reports suggest that the president and the chief executive has difference of opinion on key decisions since the formation of the unity government as several posts in government are lying empty or run by acting directors and ministers. The National Directorate of Security and ministry of defence, two key security institutions, are run by acting directors and ministers. Moreover, in February this year, two documents were leaked by the Afghan media regarding the appointment of the mayor of the Helmand province; one appointment letter was issued by President Ghani while the other was by Chief Executive Abdullah. Both had suggested different persons for the above-mentioned post, which shows that there is lack of unity between the two offices.
While on the other hand, rumours recently surfaced that the two-year term would be used to force out Abdullah from his post. According to a New York Times article, the presidential palace advisors argued that “while the position of chief executive would expire, the president would still have a mandate based on ‘an election that they saw was cleansed by a United Nations audit’.” In such a case the political chaos may arise once again between the two camps despite Kerry’s remarks during his visit to Kabul on April 10 that the term of unity government is not two years; it is five years. However, Kerry statement’s is not the final word, as the duration of the term will be decided by the Loya Jirga.
Furthermore, the Taliban’s chief Mullah Akhtar Mansour was killed in a drone strike near Quetta on May 21. From the US point of view, the objective of the strike may have to create division among the Taliban on the question of new leadership and to weaken their summer offensive. However, this event for the time being is a good sign for the Afghan government against the Taliban. On one hand, it has significantly pressurised Taliban, while on the other, it may also create differences among the ranks of the Taliban. Nonetheless, in the long run, it will have a negative impact on the peace process, as the Afghan government has been trying for two years to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table.
The US and Afghanistan have always accused Pakistan of harbouring terrorists on its soil in the tribal areas. In the light of these grievances, Pakistan started the Operation Zarb-e-Azb in the North Waziristan Agency near the Pak-Afghan border in June 2014 to eliminate terrorists from the area. This operation has significantly weakened foothold of terrorists in the area; however, lack of cooperation from the Afghan and US side have minimised the effectiveness of this operation, as many terrorists flee to Afghanistan due to lack of border security management.
For the arrangement of a successful Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace process, the Quadrilateral Coordination Group (QCG) comprised of the United States, China, Afghanistan and Pakistan was created at the end of 2015 after the Heart of Asia conference, hosted by Pakistan in Islamabad was concluded. The group has to make their full-fledged efforts while using its leverage to pave the way for peace process. So far, the group has held five meetings but without much success to bring about a substantial change. Initially, the QCG, and especially Pakistan, had played an encouraging role by scheduling a round of peace talks in March this year. However, the talks were cancelled due to some issues raised by the Taliban supreme council.
Last month, the Afghan government made a peace agreement with the Hizb-e-Islami of Afghanistan, the Hikmatyar faction, which to some extent have reinforced government’s confidence in the peace process. These negotiations are believed to have been started in 2014. According to the agreement, the group will abandoned its anti-government activities and will cease its connections with other militant groups. Besides, the Hizb-e-Islami will abide by the Afghanistan’s constitution. In return, government will have to give public forgiveness to this group’s members and release its members from jail. The group will eventually join mainstream politics.
Now in the current flux of situation when the Taliban chief is killed by the US, the prospects of peace process do not seem positive. The US justified killing of Mansour saying he was against the peace process. However, if we look back a year it was Mansour who authorised the Murree peace talks in the name of Mullah Umar. The Murree round of July 2015 was a unique event as it was a direct contact between the Taliban and the Afghan government.
Taliban’s new chief, Mullah Hebatullah, in his first announcement has vowed to continue to fight. Even so, his message does not mean complete disengagement from the negotiations. In any insurgency, when insurgents hold good position, they normally do not offer peace negotiations. They try to get maximum advantage and secure their objectives against the enemy. Same is the case with the Taliban; they are fighting for the last 15 years against the US and the Afghan forces, and have remained undefeated to a large extent in their guerrilla warfare. Now the Taliban wishes to have their maximum demands accepted by the US and Afghanistan. Whenever the Taliban deemed the offer of the US and the Afghan government appropriate, there will be an agreement of peace in Afghanistan, which will prove a bridge to regional peace and stability.
Whenever there was a real chance of peace process, it was sabotaged by someone, which takes us to the question that is there some elements that do not want the peace process to be successful. Or that they do not approve of talks in which Pakistan has a lion’s share. There may be one reason of the failure of Afghanistan’s stability: in the case of instability in Afghanistan, the US will have a long presence in Afghanistan to achieve its long-term economic and strategic objectives in the region. The Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump once said that the nuclear weapons of Pakistan are the main reason of US military presence in Afghanistan.
The US House of Representative has recently passed a bill according to which Pakistan will have to take stern action against the Haqqani network, or otherwise in case of failure, their aid of the coalition support fund will be reduced. The US rather than accusing Pakistan should make a comprehensive plan to clear Afghanistan as well as Pak-Afghan border areas of TTP and other terrorists. That would help create peace and stability not only in Afghanistan but in the region as well. In addition, the unity government should bridge their internal differences to overcome problems to contribute to Afghanistan stability in all respects.
Zafar Iqbal Yousafzai is an Islamabad-based researcher and political analyst.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/14-Jun-16/emerging-scenarios
----
Hiding Failure by Putting Squeeze
By Muhammad Jahanzaib
14-Jun-16
The region of Afghanistan remained unable to achieve peace for last many decades. World powers for their interests have been recycling the people of Afghanistan and neighbouring countries, and unfortunately, later served them accordingly for several reasons. In the wake of instability, the blame game continued throughout the conflicts but the biggest truth is that the natives of the region are the greatest sufferers of all and in all aspects.
The New York Times editorial, published on May 12, titled “Time to Put the Squeeze on Pakistan” has disturbed emotions of many of the intelligentsia and leading analysts of the world along with citizens of Pakistan. The editorial implicates Pakistan for the chaos in Afghanistan and labelled Pakistan a “duplicitous” and “dangerous” ally for the United States and Afghanistan. It is understood that the opinion is just from one group of journalists, and it cannot be generalised at all or considered official doctrine, but such prestigious newspaper could opine it in a better, a more balanced way. With this, we must keep in our minds the other numerous delightful, pluralist and enlightened expressions from the United States.
In response to the editorial of The New York Times, Ambassador of Pakistan to the United States Jalil Abbas Jilani strongly reacted to the biased opinion. He said that the situation in Afghanistan was a “collective failure of the international community.” He further added that “instead of complaining about the heavy cost imposed on us due to sustained external intervention in our neighbourhood, Pakistan has consistently cooperated with the United States and coalition forces in sharing intelligence and decimating the terror outfits operating from the region.”
To be fair, Pakistan has done many unwise things during almost four decades of the Afghan conflicts. The rationality could not be materialised; the way decision makers calculated for costs and benefits could not give them fruits. In the arena of neo-realists, every state wants to maximise its power and influence over other within its capacity but instead Pakistan suffered a lot.
It is true that the United States gave aid to Pakistan of around $33 billion in this war of terror, but the New York Times could also have mentioned the loss incurred i.e. approximately more than $80 billion. Who will repay the difference? Secondly, Taliban were a collaborated creation, referring to one speech of Hillary Clinton in which she said, “But let’s be careful, what we sow because we will harvest”, so blame should at least be shared. Thirdly, why not mention the casualties of around more than 60,000 citizens of Pakistan? Fourthly, what about the overall blow back Pakistan has suffered off for security and economy? In spite of so many sacrifices, if it is the time to ‘put the squeeze on Pakistan’ then I am afraid it is the time to bring more chaos in the region of the South Asia. Or if it is a tactic to hide failure in Afghanistan by putting squeeze on Pakistan, this notion cannot be sold easily to the world.
Regarding the future of the region, Taliban are the reality. Whether being supported by Pakistan or not, much of the population in Afghanistan still supports the Taliban regardless of the reality of how they are perceived by the international community. It is the norm of democracy to share power respectively, even if they are considered a minority. Share of power and negotiations may the only way to bring positivity and peace in the region because the relentless warfare of more than a decade has not served as a solution. The United States realised that, and that is why it agreed to hold talks with the Taliban under mediators. But now after the killing of Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, the head of Afghan Taliban, in a drone strike by the United States, which breached the sovereignty of Pakistan yet agsin, many questions arise on the process of peace talks between Taliban and the United States, and the future of the region.
It seems as if after a decade-long war, the stakeholders of this region have yet not learned or understood the dynamics of the region, or they intentionally do not wish to understand. The policy of the United States seems unclear even now regarding dealing with the Taliban; whether the US wishes to have negotiations or continue fighting, its policy remains in the mist of confusion.
Muhammad Jahanzaib is a researcher, columnist and author
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/14-Jun-16/hiding-failure-by-putting-squeeze
----
Policy Dilemmas
By Touqir Hussain
14 June 2016
TIES between the US and Pakistan have been passing through testing times. First the F-16s dispute, and then the drone strike that killed Mullah Mansour, followed by implied threats of more such strikes by President Obama. Is the relationship headed for another of the now-familiar downturns?
Mark Twain once said the history does not repeat; it rhymes. The fact is this F16s dispute is not the re-enactment of the one in the ’90s, and the drone strike may not be what it looks like on the surface. Nor does the growing American romance with India translate into abandonment of Pakistan. These are two very different relationships now. The reports of the demise of the US-Pakistan relations are thus ‘vastly exaggerated’. The US is not walking away.
When the US walked away the last time it walked away from the region not just from Pakistan. This time it is heavily invested in the region. As US Special Representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Olson said in a congressional testimony in April: “Pakistan is strategically vital, due to its role in issues that matter to us, as well as its location at the crossroads of Afghanistan, India, China and Iran. American national interests require that we stay engaged as Pakistan charts its long-term future.”
But the question is what ‘American national interests’? are And what would be the best policies to pursue them. Washington is not quite clear about it. There may be two Pakistans that America has to contend with but Pakistan has to deal with more than two Americas. Given the nature of the post 9/11 challenges, foreign policy has become military dominated and ever more politicised. There are multiple stakeholders and competing priorities and interests causing a serious fragmentation of the policy process. Over this welter of confusion presides a White House whose heart beats to the rhythms of electoral cycle and the lure of legacy. And that affects policy towards Pakistan.
Pakistan radiates many potential threats that cause legitimate security concerns to the American public affecting public opinion and thus politics. Then the Afghanistan war has not been going well for which Pakistan is getting exaggerated but understandable blame. All this has made the White House and congressional perceptions of Pakistan very political.
Politics and US national interests are thus badly out of alignment for Pakistan. Even the national interests of the two countries are not fully in sync as some of the interests of Pakistan clash with American objectives in Afghanistan on the one hand and US-India relations on the other. Not only has that, their policies on shared interests sometimes differed.
But if you look at the larger context in which US-Pakistan relations will likely operate ie the geostrategic landscape, the regional environment, and the domestic dynamics within Pakistan, the picture changes. We are talking here of the lengthening strategic shadow of China and the US pivot to Asia, the rise of India’s power and ambitions, Afghanistan’s elusive search for peace and stability, and Pakistan’s own struggle against terrorism and extremism, and efforts at stabilisation of the economy and strengthening of democracy.
Pakistan will be in the eye of a veritable geostrategic storm as it faces on one side prospects of failure on Afghanistan, and on the other continued pressures from an assertive and dominant India while it copes with internal challenges. And this has implications for the US.
Pakistan has an important role in facilitating or complicating the advancement of US interests in the future. As Mr Olson had said in the same testimony “Pakistan is critical to a negotiated settlement to the conflict in Afghanistan; strategic stability in the subcontinent; countering violent extremism; and defeating terrorists that threaten the US and the region”.
The administration thus wishes to remain engaged with Pakistan but at a level politically sustainable. Pakistan must not be ignored yet cannot be given a free pass. It is legacy time for Obama and that means Afghanistan has become the single focus of ties with Pakistan. On Afghanistan, Obama cannot leave behind a legacy of inaction and having presided over its failure, more so as the US election approaches. There is no good solution but just to leave behind the present number of troops and expand their role. And be tough on Pakistan and the Taliban.
But the trouble is Pakistan’s Taliban policy remains muddled. And its stance of neither being able to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table nor acting against them has reached a dead end. Both countries face serious policy dilemmas as they address challenges neither can handle alone. And neither has good options except that relations must go on.
Touqir Hussain is a former ambassador teaching at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins University, US.
Source: dawn.com/news/1264586/policy-dilemmas
----
Our Vanishing Hindus
By Yaqoob Khan Bangash
June 13, 2016
The writer teaches at IT University Lahore and is the author of A Princely Affair: The Accession and Integration of the Princely States of Pakistan, 1947-55. He tweets at @BangashYK
Since the educational reforms a decade ago, everyone hears about the first president of the Constituent Assembly and the first law and labour minister of Pakistan, Jogendra Nath Mandal. Mandal’s existence is always taken as the critical proof that Pakistan was conceived as a pluralistic state and his patronage by the Quaid-e-Azam himself lends his figure credibility. However, very rarely do people ask: what actually happened to him, especially since he abruptly falls off the radar after that inaugural lauded mention.
Before we come to Mandal’s departure, let me give some statistics: at the time of the establishment of Pakistan, the non-Muslim population of West Pakistan was about 24.6 per cent, while non-Muslims formed about 30 per cent of East Bengal and Sylhet. When the assemblies for Pakistan were set up, 18 members of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan were non-Muslim, out of a total of 69, meaning about 26 per cent. Even in the West Punjab assembly after Partition, around 10 members [10 per cent] were non-Muslims. Hence, when Pakistan was established not only were non-Muslims in substantial numbers, they were also reasonably well represented in the assemblies too. However, very soon conditions changed and the non-Muslim percentage decreased to less than five per cent in West Pakistan. And if conditions do not change, even this percentage will disappear.
Mandal survived in Pakistan till October 1950 and then moved to India. He left sorely disappointed and forlorn since he had been working with the Muslim League sine 1943, and had developed a good working relationship with the party. However, as soon as Pakistan was established, cracks began to appear. The very first issue was that of the inclusion of scheduled caste members in the cabinet of East Bengal. As argued by Mandal in his letter and verified by other sources, the cabinet of first Sir Khawaja Nizamuddin and then Nurul Amin kept delaying the appointment of a scheduled caste member to the provincial cabinet even after several pleas from the central minister, leaving Mandal feeling that his “outspokenness, vigilance and sincere efforts to safeguard the interests of the minorities of Pakistan, in general, and of the Scheduled Caste, in particular, were considered a matter of annoyance to the East Bengal Government”.
Mandal then narrated several incidents of attacks on Hindus in East Bengal which culminated in the riots in Dhaka itself in February 1950 where arson, loot and murder against Hindus were the order of the day. This incident led to an exodus of Hindus to India which even the Delhi Pact on minorities could not stem, he narrated. Noting how Hindus were being treated he wrote: “The boycott by the Muslims of Hindu lawyers, medical practitioners, shopkeepers, traders and merchants has compelled Hindus to migrate to West Bengal in search of their means of livelihood. Wholesale requisition of Hindu houses even without following the due process of law in many and non-payment of any rent whatsoever to the owners have compelled them to seek for Indian shelter. Payments of rent to Hindu landlords was stopped long before.” All these reasons, and more, led Mandal to conclude that the condition of Hindus in Pakistan was “not only unsatisfactory but absolutely hopeless and that the future completely dark and dismal”.
Mandal wrote his ominous letter in October 1950 and then left for India, leaving behind the minorities perhaps at God’s mercy. Most of the atrocities against Hindus that Mandal noted continue in even stronger form today. Every year, nearly 1,000 non-Muslim girls are abducted and forced to convert to Islam, non-Muslims are routinely discriminated against in jobs, and people do not even like to eat or drink with them. Only the other day an octogenarian Hindu man was beaten up in a village in Sindh for eating during Ramazan, even when for Muslims at his age and health, fasting is not prescribed.
For most people in Punjab, Hindus especially, are a breed they read about in books, since hardly any remain in the province, but in Sindh, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, we still find sizeable pockets of Hindus. Either we wake up soon and protect their rights or very soon they will vanish from the country, through forced conversions, rioting, or simply by moving to India, where now a special provision is being made for them due to their large numbers. It has been nearly 70 years since Partition, but it seems like we do not want to move on from it just yet.
Source; tribune.com.pk/story/1121936/our-vanishing-hindus/
URL: https://newageislam.com/pakistan-press/dynamics-leading-radicalisation-new-age/d/107626