An outdated mindset By Waseem Altaf The ancient, the medieval and the modern period in history significantly highlights the role of Empires. These were external territories involving the extension of a state’s sovereignty. Mauriya and the Roman Empire were part of the ancient Empires, while the Mongol the Ming and the Sassanid Empires emerged during the medieval period. Some of the prominent Empires in the modern period constitute the British, the Russian and the Spanish Empires. The states conquering foreign lands to make them a part of their Empire had strong armies which would usually invade these territories and through the application of force would make them a part of the Empire. So it was generally outright aggression through which territories were annexed. Empire-building was not peculiar to the West. Since the birth of Islam, the Muslims conquered and ruled an area comprising China, the Indian sub-continent, Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, Sicily, the Iberian Peninsula to South West Europe. It all began during the medieval period with the birth of Islam till the peak period of the Ottoman Empire (622-1566). In our history books we call them “fatuhaat” or victories but feel reluctant to label them as Islamic Empire-building. The fact remains that the expansion of Muslim rule owed its success to application of violence against an enemy less strong, less motivated, at times, in possession of inferior weaponry. The successive victories led to the development of a mindset which envisaged the use of force to achieve political ends. Similarly, territorial disputes and other issues were also resolved through an armed conflict while conflict resolution through peaceful means was generally not considered an option. However, with the growth of human civilization and consciousness, modern man realized that in the interest of the nation, outside territories can also be influenced economically and politically without the use of naked aggression. Simultaneously, there was also a deep realization that disputed matters could also be resolved through peaceful means and use of force may not be necessary at all. Even wars were being fought discreetly as a last resort to resolve disputes. However, left behind in the quest for generating knowledge and rampant technological backwardness coupled with widespread obscurantism, a large majority of the Muslims felt that neither they had the capacity nor the means to influence the outside world through nonviolent channels. In addition, the Muslim mindset had not accepted the loss of past glory while feeling incapable of reconciling in a changed world order. Unfortunately the thinking pattern was not in line with the situation on ground. Violent means to influence others at the state level and through proxies continued. Non-state actors also joined the bandwagon and it began to transpire in patronizing Western discourses that although not all Muslims, but all terrorists happened to be Muslims. Arab violence against Israel during the last several decades never bore fruit, nor did armed conflicts against India initiated by Pakistan led to any positive results. On the other hand whatever the Arabs and Pakistan accomplished against Israel and India was a direct consequence of peaceful negotiations. The Arabs tried the use of violence several times. In 1948 when Israel proclaimed independence, five Arab countries attacked Israel. After one year of war, cease fire was declared and temporary borders namely the “Green Line” were established. Jordan annexed West Bank and East Jerusalem and Egypt took control of the Gaza strip. In 1967 Egypt announced partial blockade of Israel’s access to the Red Sea. That triggered the war and the 6-day war resulted in crushing defeat for the Arabs. In 1973 when the Jews were celebrating Yom Kippur, the Egyptian and Syrian armies launched a surprise attack against Israel but ultimately were completely neutralized by the Israeli Defense Forces. In addition, countless acts of suicide bombings, hijackings and abductions have not forced the Israeli nation to accept the demands put forward by the other side. The Israeli withdrawal from Sinai was the result of Camp David Accords. On the other hand the autonomy granted to Gaza and West Bank was the outcome of Oslo Accords. The peace between Jordan and Israel is also a direct consequence of Israel Jordan Peace Treaty. The counter argument in this regard is that Israel would not have come to the negotiating table without armed struggle by the PLO and Arab states. However the author of this article believes that The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine adopted by the UN General Assembly on 29 November 1947 envisaged the creation of an Arab state and acceptance thereof, could have resolved the issue peacefully. Although accepted by the Jewish leadership the Arab leaders rejected it. Second, armed struggle including acts of terrorism never won any laurels for the Arabs, rather led to humiliation and weakening of moral stand at the international level. It also strengthened the resolve of the Israelis, having defeated it militarily to not to succumb to use of force. Let us now take the example of India. In 1947-48 our army, with the help of tribal lashkars invaded Kashmir, and after suffering heavy casualties withdrew. In 1965, they again launched Operation Gibraltar in Kashmir, without realizing that India might open up a front on the international borders, which precisely happened and our security establishment began shouting for a ceasefire. In March1971, they initiated a military action in former East Pakistan and then attacked India which ultimately resulted in the humiliating surrender of around 90,000 of our regular troops and paramilitary. In Feb, 1999, when the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was meeting his India counterpart, A. B Vajpayee, in Lahore, a dirty game was being planned in Rawalpindi to sabotage the peace process. Kargil followed, which resulted in another shameful defeat. Musharraf later begged Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to secure a safe exit for the beleaguered troops on the ridges of Kargil, and some face saving, if possible. Nawaz Sharif then went to the USA in July 1999 and on American intervention, India gave concessions for a safe withdrawal. On the other hand, as a result of Simla agreement all Pakistani POW’s (over 90,000) and captured territory (5000 sq.kms) in the West, was regained and it was decided that the two countries would settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations. The Indus Basin Treaty of 1960, to settle the water distribution issue between the two countries was another landmark achievement. Diplomatic and trade relations were also re-established in 1976.In December 1988, Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Rajiv Gandhi concluded a pact not to attack each others nuclear facilities. Agreements on cultural exchanges and civil aviation were also initiated. The proposal to grant India the “Most Favored Nation” status by Pakistan and ongoing talks between India and Pakistan may lead to full trade relations between the two neighbors. It is also worthwhile to mention that countries which trade goods do not, most likely, trade bullets. However, if there is another terrorist attack in India that can be traced back to Pakistan, every peace effort would be derailed. Pakistan (read security establishment) has to change its jingoistic stance against India as nothing could be achieved through the use of force except humiliation. And unlike Jamat-ud-Dawa, Harkat-ul-Ansar, Jaish-e-Mohammad and other such organizations who think that through the application of violence they can liberate Kashmir and destroy India, let’s give peace a chance and continue with a constructive dialogue over all outstanding issues with India while at the same time initiating a crackdown against all militant/terrorist organizations that are as grave a threat to us as they are to India. So let us forget that we can achieve any positive results through the use of force. History has proven otherwise. It is only through condemnation of all kinds of militant ideologies, acceptance of the idea of mutual coexistence, initiation of dialogue and peaceful negotiations which yield positive results in the modern world. History also bears witness to the fact that in the modern age peaceful settlement of issues always bears fruit while violence breeds more violence and leads to nothing but death and destruction.
Posted on: Sun, 18 May 2014 15:03:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015