Historical Determinism and Pakistans Existential Problems

You have stated an interesting point of view; but paucity of time precludes a longer discussion which your mail merits. But right now, I would most respectfully venture forth a few points; asymmetrical to the sequence in which you have raised them. Detailed discussion to follow soon Your colorful metaphor about mohalla scuffles is right on the mark; many of the arm-chair strategists definitely indulge in this sort of a demeanor. Heads I win, tails you lose, to summarize it! You have stated. . . . if these names had not committed these "follies" someone else, with a different name and face, wud have done exactly the same. I beg to differ here: You tell me Sir, had there been no Ataturk, would the history of Turkey have metamorphosed in the same shape and manner as it did? Ditto about Quaid-e-Azam. We have the profiles of the Muslim leadership of the period; how many of thm could have achieved Pakistan? What about Nehru and his Fabian-Socialist credentials? Do you think that India would have suffered the Hindu rate of growth till the 90s, when its economy was liberalizes. And had there being no Tseng in China at the helm in 1989; would China still be a no 2 economic power. May be or may be not; but no absolute certainty there. The point is that despite some generalized uniformity; each individual is unique in his mental make-up, world-view, personality, experience, motivation and traits. In case of leaders, they are also affected by their advisers. Therefore in any given situation, different individuals would react differently. You cannot expect PM Imran Tsunami Khan to react the same way, as Maulana Fazlu Diesel would in any given situation. Our existential situation vis--vis; this terrorism imbroglio would have been different; had we been blessed with

leaders possessing foresight, honesty and integrity. We should not fall in the trap of historical determinism. We say nuclear program was unique in the sense that it was started by Bhutto and carried on by even that guy who hanged Bhutto. Bhutto did initiate the nuclear program, but it was in cahoots with the military leadership; and that is the reason it was continued. And do not forget the Libyan and Saudi factor involved in its evolution. Afghan policy was not newly incubated by Bhutto; it was formulated right when in 1948, Afghanistan voted against Pakistans application to join UN and refused to accept the Durand Line. Bhutto merely took advantage of an emerging tactical situation/ strategic opportunity. In Zias case it was an amalgam of different factor: It gave him an opportunity to gain international legitimacy; obviate the presumed two-front war scenario; potential usage of jihadi elements in Kashmir and later on to indulge in his delusion of grandeur as the liberator of erstwhile Muslim republics of Central Asia. Now as regards East Pakistans secession, which we discussed at length earlier; was basically the result of Punjabi/ West Pakistani chauvinism and usurping the right of East Pakistani / Awami League politicians to form the govt. India and Russia like all shrewd geopolitical players took advantage of the situation. Simply put, we provided them conducive conditions to dismember our country. Anyenemy worth his salt would have done the same in such a scenario. As far as the Baluchistan insurgency is concerned, Bhutto was its instigator, when he ousted the NAP govt in NWFP and it ensued a sympathetic detonation (as bomb-makers would put it ) in Baluchistan. The Russians simply exploited an opening. I do not have a brief for Dr. Taqi, but I guess in a short column; it was not probably possible to sketch out alternatives. But You

are right, laying out the problem and criticizing is the easiest part. Let us discuss some alternative scenarios in the next session! Regards