M B Naqvi

The writer is a well-known

journalist and freelance columnist

mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

Having argued in this space that most parts of foreign policy have failed, it is necessary to shift the paradigm. With that basic assumptions and attitudes have to be altered and adjusted realistically. It requires the correction of self-perception-a difficult job. Nevertheless it is necessary. We should not punch above our height. It was a mistake to think allies or UN could bail us out when in serious trouble.

To briefly recapitulate, our Kashmir and general India policies have determined both domestic and other aspects of foreign policies. But these have ended in an impasse. Both countries having become nuclear, all their disputes, including Kashmir, have thus become frozen and arms race and cold war rivalry with India offer no further scope for any gains. The relationship with the US is dead and if we examine this forced renewal of a soured love affair with the US more carefully, the need for achieving realistically-formulated objectives have to be achieved by our own clout and effort. Some of the causes may be beyond achievements.

Pakistan's Afghan policy that yielded little other than narcotics and Kalashnikovs; it too is in tatters. Taliban regime, the crowning glory of Islamabad, seems doomed and Pakistan has been reduced to beseeching the US and the world for a few ministerships for 'moderate' Taliban in the next supposedly broad-based government-sure to be nominated by the US. The nine-year imperial sway of Pakistan over Afghanistan cost it dear. Iran was alienated and China became wary, though not alienated, while the rest of the world felt more or less displeased.

In a paradigm shift, should Pakistani walk away from the Kashmiris' cause? Not at all. Responsible freedom lover cannot remain unconcerned when 70,000 young men die in the neighbourhood during their freedom struggle. Kashmiris have a right to live in whatever dispensation they freely choose. We should support it. But it is no business of Pakistan to win Kashmiris their rights for them. This undertaking got Pakistan governments into all manner of crises, wars and forced them into unstoppable and ruinously expensive arms race with India. Let Islamabad realise what is a self-determination right: it is Kashmiris' freedom and outsiders have no role; it is Kashmiris freedom from India that they have to achieve for themselves. For Pakistan state to engage in the struggle in their behalf would be seen by Kashmiris and others as self-aggrandizement. A change is unavoidable because it has ended up in a blind alley. Pakistan had become a nuclear power largely because of Kashmir. What of Kashmir?

India's newest doctrine - nuclear weapons deter adversary's nuclear weapons only - is, as a minimum, a threat of hot pursuit of the insurgents. Pakistan has said that any crossing of LoC by India would mean war. Pakistan authorities imply conceding the chance of not winning a conventional war because of Indian military's size. Hence Pakistan's standing threat that early in a war it will use its nuclear weapon(s) first. Two conclusions follow: First, no Indian commander can wait for Pakistan to destroy a city or nuclear installation first before he acts likewise. The second inference results from this unwillingness to wait for Pakistan to strike first: there would actually be a race between them to nuke first. Thus the next war between them would be mainly nuclear. But victory at the cost of a nuclear exchange is simply too high a price for either side or for any cause. For Pakistan making the first strike will be foolish. Why? Because the Indian riposte, being relatively massive, can destroy all its six or seven industrial-urban centres-a return to stone age. If sanity survives, neither side can start a war.

The categorical imperative is: avoid war at all costs. This means strongly discouraging insurgents in Kashmir from using violent means. Next, Pakistan can go on rendering diplomatic, political, monetary and moral help to Kashmiris in their peaceful struggle against India. Only, gun running has to be avoided; it should have no direct role in Kashmir. This should be followed up with a progressive military disengagement-indeed total disengagement with a view to ending the arms race, leaving India to go wherever it pleases.

The economic cost of the policy orientation hitherto followed was terrible. Pakistan could not develop the way it should have. Despite the huge foreign aid received for development, an inefficient industrial sector has been built up that has made the economy unviable. As soon as tariffs came down, local industry became non-competitive and soon a persistent recession set in. The country remains trapped in foreign debts that threaten a collapse through a possible default in external payments. Because of the aid addiction and continued living beyond the means has made both the politics and the economy unstable and unviable. Pakistan's political instability has become a byword; with all too frequent military coups and political turmoils. In addition, the country ran the risk of being declared a rogue state and might become so vulnerable again if and when the present alliance with the US becomes a part of history.

The required change should be simple. Lets stop worrying about what India is doing or planning. Pakistanis should do what is possible and essential for them. The purpose of political and economic lives must be reformulated: the state and the government are necessary only to enable the people to live an ordered (law governed) life so that they can be culturally happy and creative while also making steady economic progress - not in the sense of abstract GNP numbers. Economic growth means ability to consume more wealth - wholesome food, improved clothes, pucca houses and opportunities for educating children and healthcare for all - and improved possibilities of cultural enrichment for all. The economy is not meant to enable the conspicuous consumption by the elite classes only. The economy has to remain viable so that Pakistanis can keep their heads high, not like today's living on bailouts at regular intervals.

The alternative paradigm is simplicity itself. The people of Pakistan and their real problems should be taken seriously because the people are true masters or the sovereign. The purpose of all activity must be to serve them; in politics, in economics and while arts and culture are meant to refine and make them more aware and happier. This ought to be the first priority. The society has to be law governed and the government - all its departments and agencies - should be its servant. The government is required only to do what the people in their wisdom desire by way of solutions to their problems. In a democratic society none is above the constitution and all are subordinate to the laws. And the economy is no exception.

The stability and security of a democratic state is anyhow three quarters guaranteed by the people, the masters of the house, who feel a stake in the preservation of the state. In Pakistan's case, physical integrity of state can, for a short while, be insured by atomic weapons, though their future presence is doomed because of the utter stalemate with India. Once the economy starts producing goods and services that actually go to improve the living standards of the people, the security of the state is enhanced manifold. A military defence of the realm would no longer be as important as it was in the days prior to nation states where Kings lived only to fight with other kings. Democratic people might go to war if it becomes unavoidable and there would be plenty of time and resources for a democratic society to ward off crude, colonial aggressions of others. Pakistan is not threatened with any attempt at conquest by any of its neighbours - certainly not by India - that has difficulty in coming to terms with its Muslim minority in its present political dispensation. It is too Hindu to relish more Muslim areas. If our policies are not militarily oriented, no one else has any reason to come and harm us.

In order to make the paradigm shift radical, we must replace the first charge on national resources from national security to relieving hunger and penury of the masses by instituting a legal and more or less comprehensive social security, no matter howsoever partial. That will of course depend upon the resources to be saved from the pointless arms race. The so-called national security, to start with, must deliver what was originally promised: nuclear bombs would ensure total security. As noted, we can retain this deterrent for a short while as an insurance against mishaps during transition while conventional military establishment is downsized with suitable golden handshakes and other provisions. Thus the expenditure on conventional armed forces can be sharply reduced to save, say Rs90-100 billion. That can serve as the start of the social security. True stakeholders are sure to make Pakistan's security invincible; no aggressor will dare look this way.

All states do need armies, basically for back up to the police forces and as a nucleus of high-tech skills to be expanded and used in case there is real need for defending the realm. The kind of military forces that the P5 or even India have is partly beyond Pakistan's capacity and partly unnecessary. Most of these powers want to have an imperial overreach in order to arm twist others. But if Pakistan were to be a genuine

democracy working to improve the living standards of its people, the need for military defence would be substantially less. Let us abolish poverty and if we institute a social security and reduce the need for military security, there would be other people wanting to become a part of Pakistan rather than Pakistanis running away in their thousands from this fortress. Let us make Pakistan a happy and prosperous home for its people, forgetting all about military rivalry with anyone.