Friday 28 November 2008

Pakistan: The World's Most Dangerous State



Lost amidst the graphic images of this week's stunning terrorist display in Mumbai was a discussion of its origins. If American intelligence is to be believed, the group claiming responsibility is connected to a radical Islamist organization at the forefront of efforts to "liberate" the province of Kashmir from Indian rule. This group has received financing and logistical backing from the notorious Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan's equivalent of the CIA.

A closer look at Pakistan reveals a deadly mix of corruption, violence, and lawlessness, the consequences of which extend far beyond the Indian subcontinent. It is, put simply, the world's most dangerous state.


Opportunistic origins
The founding of modern Pakistan can be credited to a whiskey-drinking politician whose late discovery of Islam had more to do with opportunism than conviction. In 1939, the British, who had long been India's colonial masters, were mobilizing international support for their war against the Nazis. Ali Jinnah, head of the local Muslim League, saw an opportunity and threw his weight behind Great Britain while the Indian Congress Party, India's main independence movement, vacillated. In return, he secured British support for an independent Pakistan to be carved out of the Muslim sections of India.

His ambitions were finally realized in 1947, when a war-weary Britain was seeking a quick exit from its overseas imperial burdens. The British convinced Jinnah along with the Congress Party to let the leaders of India's princely states decide for themselves which country to join: India, or the newly-established Pakistan. In most cases, the decision was a foregone conclusion; the Muslim-majority regions to the north joined Pakistan, while the Hindu-majority provinces in the south opted for India.

In one region, however, the decision would prove more complicated. The state of Kashmir had a majority-Muslim population but was ruled by a Hindu prince. His decision to unite the territory with India provoked an invasion by Muslim tribesmen intent on absorbing the province into Pakistan. But the new Indian government mobilized its forces and was able to defend most of Kashmir against the attack, heading off the invading army at what would soon become known as the "Line of Control."

To this day, the Line of Control remains the most dangerous nuclear flash point in the world.


Violence and its advantages
Kashmir is a region of legendary scenic beauty set in the Himalayas. The same mountains that create its picturesque landscape also give it a critical strategic importance. Four times in the past fifty years the conflict over Kashmir has led to war between India and Pakistan - in 1947, 1965, 1971, and 1999.

Since 1947, however, the bulk of Kashmir's territory and population have remained under India's writ. This is despite the wishes of most of its Muslim inhabitants for independence. India maintains control through the heavy-handed presence of its troops, who have often been accused of mistreating Kashmir's populace. Pakistan, for its part, demands that India allow a plebiscite that would give the people of Kashmir the choice to remain part of India or become independent. India insists that Pakistan withdraw its troops from the Pakistani-controlled parts of Kashmir before any independence vote is held. With neither side willing to budge, a stalemate has prevailed, albeit one that is perfectly acceptable to India.

Despite the frequent maneuverings of the Pakistani and Indian governments, Kashmir's own population remained relatively docile until 1987. During that year the first independence movement arose in protest against a provincial election that India had blatantly rigged. Within a few years, however, the initiative for an independent Kashmir was hijacked by radical Islamist militants imported from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Saudi Arabia. The jihadists received training and support from the Pakistani government, who sought to use them to undermine India's hold on the province.

One of these groups,
Lashkar-e-Taiba ("The Army of the Pure"), is believed to be behind this week's attacks in Mumbai. Its main stated goal is independence for Kashmir. Recently, however, it, along with its backers in Pakistan's Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) , has faced a new obstacle in the form of Pakistan's newly-elected president, Asif Zardari. Zardari, who in September replaced the country's long-serving military ruler, Pervez Musharraf, has gone to great lengths to pursue peace with India, referring to Kashmir's militant jihadists as "terrorists" and taking steps to weaken the ISI.

The worst possible outcome for
Lashkar-e-Taiba and the ISI would be a resolution of the Kashmir dispute and a final peace settlement with India. The Indian threat is the primary justification for these organizations' activities, and a lasting peace with India would eliminate the very rationale for their existence. What better way to derail Zardari's peace initiative than to launch a colossal terrorist attack that stokes India's rage against the Kashmiri mlitants and their Pakistani backers?


Lawlessness, corruption and nukes
To account for why Pakistan serves as a launching pad for terrorism and militancy requires one to look well beyond Kashmir. Since its founding as an independent state, Pakistan has endured decades of instability and mismanagement.
Periods of thieving civilian rule (1947-58, 1971-77, and 1988-99) have been interspersed with equally long stints of military dictatorship (1958-71, 1977-1988, and 1999-2008). Uniting all these governments has been an enduring proclivity for incompetence and corruption.

What's more, the Pakistani state has historically proved unable to control large parts of its territory. Vast sections of the country continue to exist under the rule of autonomous tribal strongmen. Some of these tribes have provided a haven for Taliban fighters from Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, and other militant groups. So long as these organizations have a base of operations inside Pakistan, they will continue to threaten India, America, and the world.

The dangers posed by Pakistan's feeble and corrupt state would not be nearly as ominous were it not for the country's sizable nuclear weapons
arsenal. India first tested a nuclear device in 1974 and Pakistan followed with a successful test of its own in 1998. While India has vowed not to be the first to launch a nuclear attack in a dispute with a foreign state, Pakistan has decidedly refrained from such a promise. Maintaining a first-strike nuclear stance is one of the only ways that Pakistan can offset its clear military disadvantage vis-a-vis its larger and more powerful neighbor.

To make matters worse, Pakistan lacks the robust system of checks and safeguards that most other nuclear powers have in place to prevent an accidental nuclear launch. Combine this with a
paranoid, trigger-happy military elite that has a habit of seizing the reins of power and the prospect of a devastating nuclear conflict becomes all the more conceivable.

But a state-to-state nuclear conflagration is not the only scenario the world has to fear from a nuclear-armed Pakistan. A state bureaucracy as corrupt as Pakistan's opens up the real possibility that officials with direct access to the country's nuclear technology might sell it to the highest bidder. In fact, this has already happened. A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, admitted in 2004 to selling vital nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea. The notion that well-placed personnel might move actual nuclear weapons onto international black markets is not so far-fetched.

Who else might Pakistan's crooked bureaucrats be selling to?

*For a fascinating introduction to contemporary India, I highly recommend Edward Luce's In Spite of the Gods: The Rise of Modern India. Several chapters detail the history of the conflict with Pakistan.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

thanks for the informative posting. i am glad i did not have to actually read a book to learn this, however, i certainly would have appreciated some more insight from the "news" networks covering the carnage. thanks as always.