History On Hold

Driving in America is often a relaxing experience. One can sit in his car, turn the radio on, use his phone, enjoy a drink; all while driving. However all this serenity is shattered when a look in the rear-view mirror reveals a sheriff's car. Even the most law-abiding driver becomes nervous at that sight. He may be obeying all traffic rules and all his papers may be in order, yet he fears that the dreaded siren and flashing lights will turn on and he will be forced to pull over for some trivial infraction. In this heightened state of alert, he drives well below the speed limit, gives indicators to change lanes on an empty road and becomes an exemplary driver. He goes into a shell, breaking out of it only when the sheriff's car is out of sight. The region of the world recently christened as 'Afpak' is in a shell much like a driver who finds a sheriff on his tail. A shell which it can break out of only when the sheriff leaves town. If the NATO and American forces spread throughout 'Afpak' are a formidable sheriff, then the meek powers that hold the reigns of 'Afpak' are drivers paralyzed by its sight.

When the Afghan assault began in 2001, it could be argued that Pakistan was stuck between a rock and hard place and that its acquiescence to American demands was elicited at gunpoint. Pakistan deserved sympathy and Musharraf's initial remarks as he burst into the spotlight were indicative of that. In the 8 years that followed, two architects of doom wrought havoc to their hearts' content. Bush's canvas was the world, Musharraf's was Pakistan.The Bush-Mush duo had much in common and saw eye-to-eye on many issues. They shared a disdain for the laws of the land they governed. The strength of American state institutions prevented Bush from 'holding the constitution in abeyance' and his foray into tyranny was limited to infringing on some civil liberties. Musharraf, on the other hand, was not bound by any such restriction. He was answerable to none and won the dubious distinction of becoming the first Pakistani ruler to stage a coup against two governments, one of which was his own.

Both their eras ended in humiliation. In the 2008 American Presidential election campaign, both candidates were at pains to distance themselves from the unpopular Bush. Bush had dragged his party through too much mud and in the end Obama prevailed with his mantra of change. The American election was essentially a referendum on Bush and Obama successfully channeled the anti-Bush sentiment by making 'Change' his slogan. Over half a year into his term, the mantra already has a hollow ring. His famous Cairo speech and actual American policy have so little in common that it smells of hypocrisy. Sugar-coating a hellfire missile does not have much impact on the number of people it kills. The wells of resistance in Afghanistan are swelling up today as fast as they did before, if not faster.

The 2008 Pakistani election campaign followed a similar trend; it was virulently anti-Musharraf and his party was forced to eat humble pie. Musharraf was forced out of office soon thereafter as he had run out of his lifelines and the power he wielded due to his uniform was no more. Circumstances had rendered him helpless and he faded away. In many ways, the people of Pakistan got dealt a worse hand with a tyrannical ruler making way for corrupt ones who are willing to put a price on anything.

After 8 years under Musharraf's authoritarian rule there was a glimmer of hope that the 2008 parliamentary elections would put in place a government more sensitive to the people's aspirations. This hope was based on the fact that a democratically elected government sees the populace as the source of its strength. The unmatched moral decrepitude of our current rulers has dashed all such hopes. They came into power riding a wave of sympathy, chanting hollow slogans like 'democracy is the best revenge' and 'the worst democracy is better than the best dictatorship'. They delivered exactly what they had promised: the worst democracy. A system where parliament is in place but policy-making has been outsourced.

The year 2008 saw faces change without concrete policy changes. Today, an equilibrium has been reached where the Pakistani leadership is utterly rudderless and willing to go to any lengths to please their masters while the Americans are comfortably pursuing their agenda. This equilibrium is akin to one that exists between a master and a slave rather than that between sovereign equals. While this equilibrium lasts, history is on hold for Pakistan; extremism will remain on the boil and personal interests of the rulers will trump national interests.

Re-establishing this equilibrium on the basis of sovereign equality is critical not only for America and Pakistan but also for the post-'War on Terror' world to start to take shape. The world will continue to simmer until we break from the blood-stained history of this decade. In my view, the ball has started rolling in that direction. The facade of change that has been erected on the edifice of status quo is starting to wear thin and the charlatans that hold the reigns of 'Ampak' have been exposed to be unrepentant apologists of the original architects of doom.

Much like people of faith who seek Divine guidance in their affairs, the American and Pakistani establishments see the situation through the prism of the deities they have taken for themselves. It is these deities who guide their affairs. The American political establishment is overwhelmingly Christian, but the system of governance that is in place in America makes it clear that their real faith is secularism. They are not cross-toting crazies, rather they are secular fundamentalists who worship at the altar of public opinion. They keep their hands on the pulse of the populace and follow opinion polls religiously, accepting them as the absolute moral authority in all affairs. They may believe in trinity in the privacy of their churches, but in the corridors of power they are monotheistic; their single god being the voice of the people. They love to pursue and implement their agenda, but they love being in power more. The true democracy that America is, guarantees that the rulers are never untethered. America's rulers will not be impervious to change in public opinion regarding support for the Afghan war. Herein lies the only path to a hastened withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan.

Justifying an open-ended war in tough economic times puts a lot of political capital at stake. If British public opinion is anything to go by, rising troop casualties and a faltering economy will ultimately take its toll on the patience of the American people and they will press upon their elected representatives to end the occupation of Afghanistan. If the American leadership has any foresight, it is probably preparing for that eventuality. The deluge of public outcry over this war with convoluted goals is being held back by the American public's trust for Obama while he enjoys his 'honeymoon' months, but the tide can turn overnight. Support for the Afghan war will wane if the situation in Afghanistan continues worsening and it becomes clear that the war is an unnecessary burden on the economy. By hobnobbing with the idea of dialogue with certain 'good Taliban', the American leadership is laying the ground for its future course of action. Do not be surprised to see the fate of the Afghan war becoming the hot-button issue in the 2010 senate elections.

Predicting the course of events in Pakistan is fraught with peril because of the weakness of the state institutions. History suggests that governments in Pakistan have been eternally beholden to three As: Army, America and Allah, not necessarily in that order. The only time these forces pulled Pakistan in the same direction was in Zia's era. The incumbent Pakistan government has been singularly worshiping at the altar of one of these As; no points for guessing which one. So even though America has secured overflight rights from countries to the north of Afghanistan and Pakistan is not indispensable to NATO's war in Afghanistan, you can not expect Pakistan to voice any dissent to America's grand plan for 'Afpak'. One dark horse in modern Pakistan is the judiciary. Its popularity and blind penchant for justice make it a formidable opponent for the forces of status quo who fear a stroke of its pen could send them packing and set of a chain of events to install a truly representative government in Pakistan.

Without a doubt, the history of 'Afpak' is on hold. Our fate hangs in the balance and we will stay suspended in this state until the American public presses its government to end the Afghan war or the maverick Pakistani judiciary threatens to bring down the house of cards the current Pakistani government has painstakingly erected. The ball has started rolling in that direction; the end is nigh, stay tuned.