The Consequences of 26/11
By Dr. Ghayur Ayub
London, UK
A strong economy and political stability are the major catalysts to boost the progress of a country. China is a glaring example of this reality.
I remember reading an article in the Life Magazine in the mid-1960s which predicted China surpassing America and the Soviet Union as a world power in the next 30 years. The scribe linked his opinion to the economic growth and political stability of China. 40 years later, we see the prediction coming true. The reason? China followed the saying of Sun Tzu, ‘It is best to win without fighting’.
Economically, it is the most powerful country in the world with a staggering foreign exchange reserve of 3 trillion US dollars. How interesting it is to see the champion of capitalistic economy - the US, knocking at the door of Communist China to bail them out of the present economic crunch. A few years ago no one could have believed that this could happen.
The Soviet Union, despite being a major superpower with an invincible military force, crumbled quickly because of a declining economy and deteriorating political stability.
India, in recent years, has progressed tremendously while maintaining political stability in the most awkward and difficult times. Today, it is ranked among the most powerful nations in Asia, second only to China. Pakistan, on other hand, is the most unstable country. Resultantly its economy is in shambles. To avoid becoming a default state, it had to approach the IMF for a bailout package.
In the event of a war, Pakistan would need a few more intravenous drips from donors and they would oblige us provided we keep on carrying the bowl and follow the policy on the war on terror. India is another ball game. It has too much at stake. Even a short conventional war could send India back twenty years. This would end India’s dream of becoming a regional superpower and getting a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.
For Pakistan there are other consequences, the major being the premature death of democracy. After the war, the government of PPP will fall and will not be replaced through a normal democratic process. Unfortunately for democracy, Pakistan has always progressed well under army rule. It was in 1964 under General Ayub’s rule when South Korea sent a team to find out how to improve their country economically by following the Pakistan model.
It was the same success story during Zia’s and Musharaf’s tenures. Without going into the reasons as to why civilian governments were not given a chance to complete their tenure it has been established that political instability and poor economy caused their downfall. The present democratic process which started a year ago does not provide a rosy picture either. Bad governance, corruption at the highest levels, lawlessness, price hikes, unemployment, nepotism, and increasing poverty remind us of the previous PPP governments. People seem to be disenchanted with democracy and a war would be the final nail in the coffin.
The terror attacks in Mumbai brought the distant drums of war to the Indian streets and the emotional public has started dancing to the war tunes. Up until now, India has been playing a clever role keeping a dozen or so home-grown independent movements under the rug while keeping its independent policy intact. One of the major issues pinching India politically, militarily and economically was Kashmir. It is this issue, coupled with mass hysteria generated by the war on terror following the attacks of 26/11, which might lead to unexpected turns. For example;
1. During Musharaf’s era the Kashmir issue was put on the backburner. Asif Ali Zardari went one step further by announcing the freedom fighters in Kashmir are terrorists and called India a ‘friendly country’. Contrary to this statement, Barak Obama called Kashmir the main burning issue.
2. Up until now, the separatist movements, which India labeled terrorism, were an internal matter. Delhi never sought external help despite the strong upsurges in Kashmir and a few North Eastern States. Thanks to the late Benazir Bhutto and Aitezaz Ehsan (as reported by the print media) the Khalistan movement was truncated. The incident of 26/11 might suck India into the ‘war on terror’ which is exclusively defined by the US and fought on its terms. In other words, soon the war on terror may be not an internal matter for India any more. Pakistan knows the consequences of such a war.
If the planners of 26/11 were trying to shift the Kashmir issue and replace it with the international war on terrorism; they might have got it wrong. With the change of leadership from the Neo-Cons to Democrats in the White House, the political gurus expect the new regime revisiting the term ‘terrorism’. So far, Americans have failed to achieve their objectives with this term. How India is going to achieve its objectives remains to be seen.
There are other possible consequences of 26/11, some negative and some positive, for India:
1. The rightist Hindus will take advantage of the incident and will try to dominate future Indian politics, thus changing the image of India from a docile society to a radical one.
2. It might cost the Congress Party the next elections. The only way the present government can avert that from happening will be to have surgical strikes in Azad Kashmir. This would have disastrous consequences. Even a limited conventional war between the two countries will dry out foreign investments in India at a very crucial time of development. Also, there is a grave danger of a conventional war turning into a nuclear war with unimaginable consequences. This would be despite Asif Ali Zardari’s promise of not initiating a nuclear war. In the last few months we have seen Zardari making U-turns on his promises.
3. The turmoil could trigger off rebellions in those states which are struggling for independence. India, so far, has been able to keep a lid on them. But not anymore.
4. There are some positive points too provided India shows some restraint. For example, India could use it as powerful tool to push Barak Obama to support India becoming a permanent member at UNSC. Secondly, in the present declining global economy India would be able to get substantial financial benefits. Thirdly, if Obama wanted (as he promised) to settle the Kashmir issue, it would be more favorable to India than to Pakistan .
The Indian warmongers should think twice before playing with the emotions of the public. They should know that the only way to save India from disintegration is to stick to policies that promise economic growth and political stability. If India could raise the growth rate by avoiding a military conflict who knows it could surpass the present world powers economically in the next 40-50 years, as China did, according to the 1960 prediction of the Life Magazine. Like China, India should concentrate on economic growth and political stability which do not figure in a war.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
