WORLD Bookmark and Share printSmallLarge Turning inward TURNING INWARD Pakistan needs a nation-builder like Kemal Ataturk. By N.V. Subramanian (13 October 2014) New Delhi: From “Field Marshal” Ayub Khan to General Parvez Musharraf, Pakistan’s military politicians have been admirers of the Turkish statesman and nation-builder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. They would not have cared for his “secular” assault on Turkey, the banning of the fez, the veil, and so forth. He made the Turkish army a permanent feature of Turkish politics, holding the balance of power, so to speak; in clumsy and extreme ways, the Pakistanis have imitated him, and produced disastrous results. Pakistan can never be Turkey. Turkey was a caliphate till it was abolished in the aftermath of World War 1. It was not much of a caliphate by then or anything really because it faced substantial geopolitical challenges from Bolshevik Russia and Shia Iran and from the Arab tribes being crafted into artificial nations by the victorious allies of the Great War. Nevertheless, for all its moth-eaten state, Turkey could lay claim to an old imperial tradition. Through all the modern wars of Europe, the Ottoman Turks were a factor, albeit a dwindling one. Pakistan, on the other hand, had to search for an identity when it was partitioned from the rest of India. It preferred to reject the South Asian identity for an Islamic one tied to Arab imperialism. It showed a cruel lack of foresight. Then, Pakistan’s military leaders chose not to learn a critical lesson imparted by their Turkish hero. Ataturk turned Turkey inward after the defeat in the war. With Turkey’s long-standing adversary to the north, Russia, Ataturk reached a stable peace. He couldn’t afford to get Turkey entangled in the old, long wars of Europe. Dimensions of wars had changed. World War 1 was the first of the total wars; these wars needed vast treasures and technologies that Turkey did not possess. It was inconceivable that Turkey would return to the glory and riches of the ancient Ottoman Empire; the world had changed. Ataturk understood this and forced change on Turkey. Today’s Turkey is not Ataturk’s Turkey; but his legacy is hard to erase. This sturdy and profound acceptance of a country’s limitations of political, economic and military power has always escaped Pakistan. The terrible military-political traditions established by the putschist generals of Pakistan are well-known; but it is amazing that General Musharraf fell into the same trap. He well knew Pakistan could not sustain the present model of surviving on conditional foreign aid; yet, the most he could think of with respect to the Turkish model was the janissary armies. But they were past and done; they proved ineffective in the late Modern European wars. And for an intelligent man, Musharraf lost sight of Ataturk’s chief recipe of peace in the neighbourhood. Pakistan stood to gain with peace with India. He never acted seriously on it. The real problem with Pakistan is that it can never get a leader like Ataturk. This goes beyond the fact that Pakistan and Turkey are utterly unlike one another beyond a shared religion. The problem partly has to do with the competitive jingoism of Pakistan’s political and military establishment. When a liberal politician takes office, the military becomes hard line; when a military leader talks in terms of peace (which is rare), the politicians become taunting. Z.A.Bhutto scorned the Pakistan army for losing East Pakistan; at the first opportunity, the military hanged him; it killed his daughter. Nawaz Sharief savaged a decent army chief, Jahangir Karamat, over the Indian nuclear test in 1998; his successor overthrew Sharief. This competitive nationalism partly prevents Pakistan from reaching a democratic equilibrium; its military can never be subject to civil supremacy. On the other hand, the military won’t let go of an expansionist foreign policy despite the obvious limits and impediments to its success. The Pakistan army wants strategic depth in Afghanistan against India; it is not anymore clear it will succeed; the mood in Afghanistan is quite vengeful against Pakistan. Pakistan banked on a tactic of ceasefire violations in Jammu and Kashmir; this season, India made it pay a heavy price. It has gone to the UN complaining against India; it will change nothing. History is turning against Pakistan; it is not ready to face the truth. In the past, Pakistan was valuable to some powers for its proximity to hydrocarbon-rich Middle East. Declining United States has other priorities now. The Middle East itself is in such turmoil that the old equations have crumbled. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan’s big funder, is distracted by the troubles; they threaten it. China, for its part, is forced to refocus on its backyard; the Hong Kong agitation holds long-term consequences. A failed state, Pakistan has to turn inward. The more it externalizes itself, spreading terrorism to Afghanistan and India, the greater it threatens its current possessions. It needs someone of the stature of Kemal Ataturk to rebuild it; but there is no sign of him. N.V.Subramanian is Editor, newsinsight.net and writes on politics and strategic affairs. He has authored two novels, University of Love (Writers Workshop, Calcutta) and Courtesan of Storms (Har-Anand, Delhi). Email: envysub@gmail
Posted on: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:14:12 +0000