A geo-strategic shift?

Since the earlier days of Liaqat Ali Khan, Pakistan has looked towards the prospering west for support on all grounds. However, it has paid heavily for the blind-love of the Western democracies in the form of sanctions from the 70s, to an exodus of Afghan refugees in the 80s that continued in the 90s and continues to this day, and more recently, in the form of domestic instability that has wrecked havoc around the cities of this, once peaceful nation. Road-side killings, suicide bombers, and the largest internal displacement of people in the history of mankind, combined with an eroding sovereignty is not something that we planned for. Is it fair to blame the past for the future? Should we agonize ourselves that had we aligned ourselves to powers that in addition to being sincere with their allies were also closer in proximity to Pakistan, we might have been in a better condition today? The Iron-Curtain fell in 1991, but for Pakistan, as the Soviet Union had been, Russia too, remained a mystery, until perhaps, recently. If we, as any economist would put it, let the bygones be bygones, we see a future.., a future that is promising, a future that does not have a crumbling Pakistan with charlatans occupying the highest echelons of the government, and a future that might conclude the geo-strategic shift of Pakistan’s foreign policy towards the Russian bear from the not-so-soaring American Eagle, that has been broken, beaten, and scarred by its extravagant adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since the late 2008, there has been an inclination towards Russia, from as minor steps as providing Russian news on local television, to as important as state visits. More recently, Pakistani Army Chief, General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani paid an official visit to his counter-part in Moscow. They did not only discuss the need of establishing a better collaboration between the two countries, but discussed a military cooperation and the desire of a “strategic partnership”; something, which Pakistan has desired in the tactical and sporadic relationship with Washington until now. So what do we do? Where are we heading? Will there be a geo-strategic shift? Perhaps, a powerful regional alliance, or a demonizing Western backed war on terrorism, which might lead to ever-deteriorating social, economic, and political condition of the South-Asian region? Fareed Zakria once suggested that, “America has tended to make its strategic missteps by exaggerating dangers”, we on the other hand; however, have tended to make our strategic missteps by confirming those exaggerated dangers in the form of pursuing the Holy Grail of democracy and fighting terrorism with guns and tanks. It is true, as Madge Micheels Cyrus said, “Nonviolence doesn't always work - but violence never does.” It is perhaps about time that Pakistan focuses on regional alliances, as much as, if not more than it focuses on the importance of its partnership with the declining super-power of our day. It is also true, that keeping America at an arm’s length is not realistic, nor desirable. What Pakistan needs today, is austerity in its domestic issues, a top-down policy instead of a bottom-up is the way it works. And a foreign policy that understands the importance of regional powers as much as it does of the global power. Perhaps, the first step has been taken, and maybe in the coming few years, with the prospering future of Russia and China, Pakistan might be a strategic partner of the two, like today, Israel is of America, something we could never become.

“Preconceived notions are the locks on the doors to wisdom”

We learn while we grow, yet some resist change. Where some are always aware of their ignorance, others are ignorant of their ignorance. And so, I was blasted by a kid on how my views are contradictory. For, in his case I listen to “LAAL” a music group that supports socialist, at times, communist ideologies; however, according to him, I support “aristocracy” (which I do) as the best form of government. Impeded by delusions of preconceived notions, many people pounce on the very names of communism and aristocracy. My point here, however, is not to indulge in discussions about these people but rather explain the difference between a “form of government” and an “ideology”, perhaps, as human nature it is, clarify my perspective.

Aristocracy has been in practice since at least the 5th Century BC, nurturing in Athens, to the magnificent empire that encircled the Mediterranean; Communism, on the other hand, remains an ideology that came as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Was communism against aristocracy? Or was it a political movement that sought to overthrow the capitalist society that spurred the conflict between the different classes of society, to a point of no return? My take on this? It was the later. Had I been in favor of communist ideas and stood for capitalism on the other hand, I would have been contradicting myself, something which seems too hard to be understood by the bigotry critics of modern times. Someone once said that “Democracy has become the Holy Grail of Western culture”, and I say, we are following suit. I support Aristocracy against democracy, and communism against capitalism. Now, someone will pounce on me saying that the “aristocrats will never support a communist system over a capitalist one!” – Before you lose your breath, let me assure you, whether aristocrats will or will not support communism as an ideology, is not the point of debate. If aristocracy is against communist ideas, so is democracy. Where communism strives to end the class “conflict”, aristocracy remains a form of government by the “best”. They are entities that are a world apart. I do not favor a comparison between oranges and sofas.

How do we define who is the most able, or the “best” is certainly not possible with a universal suffrage that brings forth people, who, even though are on a higher platform of comfort, are on a higher platform of ignorance as well. Again, before I drift into an endless debate between democracy and its rival forms of government, that rarely are understood in our times, I will remind myself, that the point of this discussion was to explain how someone can support communist ideas on one hand, and stand for aristocracy on the other, without contradicting himself. If the most able rule, and if those who do not seek power, are vested with power, maybe, if they see it fit for the society, a socialist ideology, if not strictly a communist one, might flourish under them. For this, however, one should know the difference between an aristocracy and an oligarchy. I shall end this with a note that, not ignorance, but the ignorance of ignorance is the death of knowledge.

PS: the coming years might change my take on many a thing, for learning is a lifelong process – but this is how they stand today; might not a few years from now, however.

Democracy

“Dēmokratia”, now known to the world as “Democracy” is a form of government, or the “rule of the people”. The most important question that arise out from this is a simple one, is the government “by the people” is also a government “for the people”? A clear analogy exists here, that calls democracy “rule of the people, by the people, for the people”. What is not so clear, however, is that if this form of government is the “best” for a country in particular, or the world at large. For this, one shall not only glance at the humble beginnings of the much celebrated mechanism of democracy, but perhaps, take into consideration the definitions of Aristotle’s views on the best form of government, and Plato’s immortal words – “democracy passes into despotism”. One may wonder if there a misconception of equality that is being used against the people for the hunger of the seat of power. Maybe, this flaunt of democracy of the modern world not only acts to promote itself, but serves as a shroud on the alternatives to democracy; monarchy, aristocracy, and in Aristotle’s words, Polity.

In the city states of Ancient Greece, Athens progressed much in its social, political, and cultural field. It was a nurturing ground for the queen of sciences, philosophy. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were not mere names and figures in the history of the development of philosophy in general, and the uplifting of life in particular. Plato and Aristotle were critical of democracy, and worked much to better understand this strange phenomenon. While in Athens, in the Master’s time, population never exceeded 10,000, there existed a different form of democracy, than what exists in the contemporary world. It was a direct democracy, where all people could participate in openly held debates and forums, affecting their lives. But here, equality was not the equality of today. Here, slaves and women did not have any political right. The philosophers strived for an educated class to become the “philosopher-kings”. One man one vote was not the philosophy of the day and the educated lot of the Greeks understood that equality in front of God, and equality in terms of abilities were two separate notions in the sphere of human life. So Aristotle studied a hundred and sixty constitutions, and divided the form of government in three different parts; what he called, the good constitutions. Monarchy was the form of government where a single monarch worked for the betterment of the whole; Aristocracy, where the privileged class, the nobility strived to uplift the populace at large; and, Polity, where the people ruled for the people. The Master did not finish here; he had in his mind the three anti-theses of these forms of government. When the Monarch regarded his own amusements higher than those of the rest of his people, it was no longer a good form of government, but a bad constitution, a Tyranny. Similarly, aristocrats were not aristocrats but Oligarchs in an oligarchy when they preferred their own tastes over the rest of the community; and a rule by the people turned into a rule by the mob when it strived for its own betterment leaving the society at large on its own, it was what he called, democracy. It was perhaps the influence of his great teacher which was seen here. A mob rule can either lead to anarchy or despotism.

Plato remarked thus; “Democracy passes into despotism.” One may wonder how from the height of liberty can come the deepest forms of repression. Too much power in the hands of democratically elected individuals can yield draconian results. Nazi Germany stood firm behind its Fuhrer. Soon enough, opposition was eliminated and the country steered in one direction and one direction only; destruction of the Third Reich and the social catastrophe that lingered due to the Great War. It is long understood that “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” A democracy that empowers the ruling class is in a process of self-destruction. This self-destruction is not in isolation, but like a suicide bomber in the midst of a calm and tranquil gathering, a chaos that tears the social fabric of the whole society. Is history on an agreement with Plato and have a lesson for the civilization? Or does it disregard the words of the great teacher as mere philosophical rhetoric? Any democracy that is “too democratic” in its working has proven Plato to be right in his judgment. Moderation between the polity and aristocracy, that tends to bring closer these two anti-theses of each other from their extremes, might be the answer. Even with the despotic nature of democracy, it tends to survive on its rhetoric of an egalitarian society. Does the slogan of “all men are equal” apply in everything? Everyone has a mind, but not everyone is an Einstein. Let us analyze!

When we talk of the ancient civilizations of the past, the Egyptians, Aztecs, Mayans, Chinese, Greeks and the Romans, we talk of not the general population. It is not an average Athenian that attracts our attention to the cradle of civilization, nor the mere Egyptian labor that depicts the marvels of the Ancient Egyptian architecture, but the very few that belonged to the upper echelons of their societies. Not everyone had the calculating mind of Imhotep in Ancient Egypt, nor did everyone come up to the standard of the dialectical debates of Socrates. Then where is the equality that our democracy talks about? It is probably the love of power that has managed to twist the meaning of equality of mankind before God, the covenants and credo of the religion; to the equality of one man and one vote, the expression and rhetoric of democracy! It is a well known fact that for democracies to excel, the population at large must be aware of the working of their government, the ideas and manifestoes of their representatives, and the impacts of their decisions on the society. How will the population achieve this awareness? The answer lies in education. Without awareness, no one knows when Polity turns into Democracy, and when democracy yields to despotism. Only when the smooth transition is over, is when the masses understand their helpless position in the government. It is by no nature of things that an illiterate person’s decision lies on the same level of understanding as is one that of the educated, noble, and elite of the same society. In the contemporary world, this has turned out to be a taboo, but one must ponder over the idea, if the same illiterate person is not qualified to run a business or be the elector of the advisory body of one, how can he be the judge and elector of those who govern the whole society? How are men of knowledge and understanding become equal to men of ignorance and inexperience? They certainly cannot! As the young are not the judge of the highest matters, so the lower stratum of the society must not be the electors of a government at large. This misconception of the basic idea of equality has given way to flaunt of democracy.

It is said that, “Democracy has become the Holy Grail of Western culture.” There is no argument whether it has, or not. It certainly does occupy the overwhelming majority of our news channels and our decisions. Whether it is used as a pretext to invade a country, or to promote the soaring Eagle of the world, democracy has held its ground firm and strong through the effective use of media as its propaganda instrument, and by suppressing opposition. Will Durant in his book, “The Pleasures of Philosophy” explain that “we are anarchists by nature and citizens by suggestion.” Why is the world after democracy? Is it workable? It certainly might be, in the moderate form with an educated lot of voters. What do countries in today’s world follow? Constitutional Monarchy, Polity, and the worst form of government, for the most illiterate part of the world, democracy. The United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, all have extremely high levels of literacy, and a constitutional monarchy. United States of America, India and Switzerland with not so relatively high forms of literacy tend to follow moderate democracy, while the least of them in literacy, countries like Pakistan tend to fall for the extreme form of democracy. It has certainly become the "Holy Grail" of the Third World countries, who have fallen a victim to this brandish of democracy. Suppression of “undemocratic” forces in these countries and a delusive version of the worst form of government, as the best form of government lead to despotic corrupt rule of the people. Dynastic parties might turn the mob rule into an oligarchy and the state becomes a vicious circle of immorality and exploitation by the people, in the name of the people. The states start to fall apart, and a collapse is inevitable.

One must then figure out the best form of government. Why do the educated class of the world so open to constitutional monarchies? And not the extreme forms of democracy? Why do the aristocrats find their just rule without much opposition when they work for the betterment of the whole? It is perhaps an irony, that the best form of government is one where there are some men who are equal and some “more equal than others”. Where some are the philosopher administrators, as in the case of Confucianism of China, and where others are those who, although not bound to it, are in the working class of the society. People who understand the complexities of the state and government can better judge as to who shall be at the seat of power. In a democracy, where it has become a field of alluring the people on an equal basis of their inequality, it is a game of power. It is rightly pointed, to the contrary of the working of a democracy, by Plato – “Those who do not seek power, are fit to hold it.” It is then perhaps evident, that those of us, who take pleasure in governing the rest of us, must not be the ones who govern us! It is a truism that this is what happens in the contemporary uneducated world, but that is a democracy working on its extreme, what happens in the developed world is either a constitutional monarchy, or a moderate democracy, on the lines of the Polity of Aristotle. Although, aristocracy lost its case long ago, it still remains a good form of the government, and when the people understand this, perhaps an aristocrat government will not be confused and compared with an autocratic regime. Should we bandwagon and follow in the footsteps of those countries that enjoy immensely high rates of literacy and delude our self with an inept form of democracy, a bad form of constitution? Or should we educate our self, and select one of the three good forms of government, as pointed by Aristotle, which remain to this day, as true, as they were in Ancient Greece? A moderate democracy might be the answer, but that is not on the basis of the meaning of equality that we understand today. Perhaps, when aristocrats have helped uplift the lower stratums of society to a more respectable level, a moderate democracy might prove more fruitful. But an oligarchy cannot and will not do that. Nor will a government left on its own go towards moderation.., it will lead to that despotic form of polity that Aristotle called, democracy.

So if “Dēmokratia” in reality is, “the rule of the people, by the people, for the people” then perhaps through educated voter class, and proper checks and balances it might turn out to be a form of government that will not only take into consideration the interests of its own but the society at large. For that, education is a requirement. Whether we want a monarch, an aristocrat, or a democrat, we want a just individual that seeks to uplift the society and culture, and not fall a victim to despotism. Whether moderate democracy is the true answer to the best form of government or not, whether a politician works for the state or not, the educated and enlightened, and they alone, can judge better. Universal suffrage is not the answer in the name of equality for the human race that has no basis of egalitarianism. A philosopher, scientist, or an expert can never be equal in their judgment or thought to their very brothers who are on a lower level of education and knowledge to them. They are certainly equal, in the sense of being a member of the same species, equal perhaps as a man in front of God, but not equal in the delusion of democracy. When the world understands this inequality and come to terms with it, only then maybe it will witness the best form of government.

The Scourge of Society

Flogging and flaying
Of the feeble
In Murky credence
of the pseudo religion

A vicious circle
Of pain and agony
The Scourge, dreadful and horrendous
Of radicalism and violence

A torrent of cursed beliefs
Sanctified by scanty hallucination
Condemned by the scouraged society
Of everlasting humiliation

Mistaken beliefs
Of honor and dignity
In an oblivious mirage
Of a twisted Islamic Nation

Disgrace in the name
Of religion and grace
The future is upon us
Of a society in ruins!

The Hate Springs

Scarlet clouds wrinkle the sky
Mordant droplets grind down memories
Hate devours thoughts forlorn
As the seeds of revulsion fall from the sky

Drop by drop.. As crystals of an atrocious chain,
Ricochet the mind terrain.
Burgeon into fountains of hate,
Where light shimmers into eternal darkness.

Hordes of remembrance stampede the heart
Abhorrent rays mix in a kaleiodoscope of misery
The hate springs rejuvenate
As the seeds of odium sprout from the land

Obliviously drifting with the deluge,
Rupturing the social fabric.
Of sinister traditions and customs,
Where disgust devours desolation.

Submerged under chaotic waters
Yearning for the cloud of freedom
The affliction will nurture
As the mushroom grows..

Rise and Fall of Muslims

One of the most revered and charismatic orators of history, William Pitt, the Elder, declared in one of his magnificent speeches at the House of Commons, that if England did not give way to its American colonies, then the “…Kingdom is Undone!”. Whether his words were true or not, the Kingdom of Heaven in the contemporary world is undergoing a bloodbath. Centuries before Pitt was born, even centuries before his country became a nation, The Romans, Byzantines, Persians and Arabs, all were fighting for glory – and then, God revealed His word. With the advent of Islam, the world was bound to undergo a change. It was God’s will that the Muslims were victorious in the early years of Islam. From Khalid bin Walid to Saladin Ayubi, Muslims were a formidable force to be reckoned with. As Saladin had once united the disunited Muslims to regain their prestige, soon after his death, the Kingdom of Heaven started to fall apart. From then onwards, till the Ottoman’s rise, Muslims were annihilated near extinction by the mighty hordes of the Mongols; nonetheless, with the Ottoman’s rise under Suleman, the Magnificent, Muslims were an axis of power; the Ottoman, the Persian and the Indian Empire being the symbols of Military, Culture and Finance respectively. However, The Golden sparrow of Babur and Aurangzeb was turned into a dead bird by the ever-so-powerful British Empire, and ever since, it seems, the Muslim Kingdom is Undone!

Muslims in the early years of Islam faced countless hardships and opposition from the people they once called their own. When the lavish offers of the most powerful tribe of Mecca were ignored by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to the most ordinary (if there were any?) of those who embraced Islam, opposition to Islam reached its peak. When persuasion failed, coercion found its way out. Extreme hardships, torture and hurdles in praying and offering religious duties compelled Muslims to perform, what is known in history as one of the greatest emigrations ever. It was the year 622 AD that after hostility reached its peak; the Prophet (PBUH) performed the Hegira and moved to the city, then called, “Yathrib” which today is known as Medina. The Prophet (PBUH) was welcomed in Medina and he soon established a hold in the city. Although the Meccans were determined to get their hands on the followers of Islam, hence, their hostilities only grew. A number of small skirmishes laid the grounds for the first large-scale battle in the history of Islam, the battle of Badr.

The year 624 AD saw the invasion of Medina by an army three times larger than those that the followers of Islam could muster. Battle of Badr was not only a turning point for the Muslims, but it strengthened the foundations of the new force that had now arisen in the Arabian Peninsula. God mentioned the divine intervention in the Holy Quran as follows;

“Allah had helped you at Badr, when ye were a contemptible little force; then fear Allah; thus May ye show your gratitude. Remember thou said to the Faithful: “Is it not enough for you that Allah should help you with three thousand angels sent down?” Al-Imran (3:123-124)

The battle resulted in a marvelous victory to the Muslim army, and many important leaders of the Quraish were killed. Many other battles followed the battle of Badr until the Conquest of Mecca when the forces of Islam captured the city they were forced to emigrate from.

As once, at the time of the Battle of Badr, the Meccan armies had marched on the city of Medina; the forces of Islam marched on the City of Mecca in 630 AD, although with a rather different outcome. Meccans surrendered to the Prophet of Islam without a fight, and to the surprise of the surrendered force, a general amnesty was declared in the city. It was this day when Abu-Sufyan, the biggest leader of the Meccan Army, was also given amnesty – as a result he embraced Islam. It was also the day when the foundations of the future Islam Empire were laid down by none other than the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) himself. Mecca was the most powerful city in the Arabian Peninsula, and when it came under the Muslim control, Islam started spreading at a very fast pace. Although the Prophet (PBUH) passed away only two years afterwards, Islam did not stop there. From Khalid bin Walid to Saladin Ayubi, Muslims came, saw, and conquered.

Under the Second Caliph of Islam, Umar (RA) the Empire started to expand. The Sword of Allah, as he was referred to, Khalid bin Walid was sent to the Syrian front in 636 AD where he won one of the most decisive victories of his career, the Battle of Yarmuk. The Byzantines surrendered Damascus to the Muslim army led by Khalid bin Walid at the battle. It was under the leadership of this brilliant general that Islam was spread into Syria, Egypt and Persia. By the end of the rule of the Second Caliph, Muslims occupied much of North Africa, Persia and the Middle East. With the Empire expanding at a tremendous rate, administrative problems of handling the affairs of such a vast empire came on the front.

Imperial outstretch, as it is at times referred to, the Empire had stretched far and wide, and hence the tentacles of the regional superpower were prone to outside attacks. It was around 1095 that the First Crusades were called for, to retake the city of Jerusalem. Within four years, the Holy City was taken under control by the Christian crusaders resulting in a massacre of Muslims present in the city. The Crusaders were victorious in their first attempt. Forty five years after the Fall of Jerusalem, Muslims recaptured Edessa; as a result the Second Crusade was started. The Christian cavalry did not gain from the Second Crusade and the Muslim army inflicted heavy damages on the Crusaders. Around 1170, Saladin came to power in Egypt and there were calls for another major Crusade against the Muslim Empire from the church.

Saladin reunited the Muslim princes in an effort to regain the lost glory. It was not only his military genius but his truthfulness that earned him a legendary status in Muslim and Non-Muslim lore. Not until the Templers ravaged a trade caravan of the Muslims, did Saladin take on an offensive to recapture the Holy Land and did so in 1187. Three Mighty Emperors took on the Third Crusade against their powerful opponent. Philip II of France, the Holy Roman Emperor and King Richard Lion-Heart of England combined their forces in an attempt to recapture Jerusalem. By 1191 however, King Richard was left without the support of his two rivals, Philip II and the Holy Roman Emperor, and the Third Crusade was unable to recapture the city of Jerusalem, which remained under the military genius of Saladin. Although, the Mongols ravaged Baghdad in particular and Muslims in general, it was not until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the 20th Century and the creation of Israel, that the Holy City was lost by Muslims again.

He was the grandson of the great Mongol Emperor, Genghis Khan. The Mongol Empire was the largest continuous land Empire in the history of the world, and Hulagu Khan only stretched it further. As the Mongols rose to supremacy, Muslims were pushed in a state of oblivion. By the year 1258, the Muslim Caliph ignored the calls of the Mongol Emperor to surrender, resulting in a siege laid by the Great Khan. In one of the most brutal captures of a land recorded in history, Baghdad became a victim to the horrendous treatment of the victors. It is estimated that at least 800,000 people were massacred, sparing only the non-Muslims. The city burnt for seven days, and what remained of the once great Abbasid city, was only ash. Only decades after the dreadful event of Baghdad, a Turkish leader by the name of “Usman” laid the foundations of the much famous, Ottoman Empire.

As the Byzantine Empire was fading into nothingness, Ottoman Empire was gradually rising. From the late 13th Century to the early 16th Century, Ottoman Empire was the symbol of Muslim military and culture. It was not until 1922 that the successive sultans of the House of Usman lost their crown and the world lost the Ottoman Empire. Along with the rise of the Ottomans, a Muslim descendant of the powerful Mongols was also rising.

Known for constructing towers made of skulls of the captive and massacred, Tamerlane was a fierce warrior who stretched his holdings from India to the Mediterranean. Tamerlane was not in allegiance with the Ottomans, and even had the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire captured in battle. It was this friction between the two rising powers that did not enable Muslim rule to be absolute and far stretched. Tamerlane weakened the “Golden Horde” and their holdings in Russia, ravaged Delhi, and annihilated those who rebelled, as in the case of Isfahan. While Tamerlane is known for his military expeditions, his empire was not the one to last, like that of the Ottomans.

Suleman, the Magnificent, from 1520 to 1566 ruled as the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. It was the peak of the Empire, and an emblem of Muslim might. A great diplomatic negotiator as well as a great general, Suleman concluded peace treaties as well as an alliance with the French King. He invaded Hungary and also captured Tabriz and Baghdad, once the cities under the Mongol rule. The Ottoman rule stretched to the North of Africa, the Balkan states, and much of Middle East. It was this time that the Muslims were an Axis of Power. Ottomans were the sign of Military might while the Persians were known for their culture and the Indian Empire, which was now on a gradual rise, was to be known as the Golden Sparrow of the world.

He was one of the descendants of Tamerlane, and the founding father of the Mughal Dynasty in India. Babur invaded India and in 1526, at the famous battle of Panipat, defeated an army of 100,000 men with only 21,000 warriors. It was not only his military genius, but perhaps, the blood of his great ancestors that helped him in inflicting defeat on such a massive army. Babur was the last in the line of Emperors to construct towers out of skulls of the defeated army. Although he died before he could consolidate his power, it was one of his descendants, who by his administrative skills and military genius made India a stronghold of Muslims. Aurangzeb stretched his empire far and wide and put down revolts and rebellions with sheer force. It was his non-tolerance towards non-Muslims that made him infamous amongst the inhabitants of India. Aurangzeb was the last of great Mughals and soon after, the Empire started to decline gradually.

Although, Aurangzeb had left a powerful realm, it was not something his successors could handle. Internal strife and external pressure combined with bungling rulers left the Mughal dynasty in ruins. There were internal risings and revolts in the subcontinent. Marhattas and Sikhs challenged the Mughal rulers and there was chaos in the empire. By the 17th and 18th century, the East India Company, formerly a trade company of the British Empire had established its foundations in the Indian subcontinent. Till 1857, the Mughal Emperor remained on the throne as the Britons paved their way to absolute control. After the uprising of the Indians in 1857 and the crushing defeat inflicted by the British in the War of Independence, the last of the Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar was dethroned; and the Empire abolished. This was the end of a long and prosperous Muslim rule in the subcontinent. Soon to follow was the Ottoman Empire.

In the First World War, the Ottomans sided with the Central Powers; Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria. In this Great War, the Central Powers were defeated by the Allied Powers of Britain, France, Italy and Japan. World War I was the end of the once great Muslim Empire, and now it was left on the mercy of the victors. The Treaty of Versailles sealed shut the fate of the Central Powers, and soon after, Mustufa Kemal a nationalist, abolished the Sultanate; thus formally ending the Ottoman Empire. What followed the demise of these two Empires was a steady decline of Muslims around the world.

The British controlled Palestine from the end of the World War I to 1948, when the United Nations devised a plan to divide the country into two halves and make room for the Jewish people. The plan which was severely criticized and rejected by the Arabs, was as expected, welcomed by the Jews and hence, the Holy Land was divided. Massive aid flowed in for the new Jewish state, and despite being in the heart of the Arab land, Israel was made sure of its survival by military and economic aid. Soon after, a number of wars followed; in 1967 Israel annexed the Golan Heights from Syria, and in the Yom Kippur war of 1973, even with the advantage of a surprise attack, the Arab states were unable to gain victory of the, now dreadful, Jewish state of Israel. Whether Israel was created to keep a “balance of power” in the Middle Eastern region, which was rich in oil, and could have made its monopoly, or to sincerely give a homeland to the Jews, remains a mystery. By this time, Muslim glory and prestige was lost in the void, and what remained was the invasion of two more Muslim countries.

In September 2001, America invaded a whole country, predominantly Muslim, for capturing a “suspect” of a terrorist attack that struck the World Trade Towers. While hundreds of thousands of Muslims perished in the aftermath of the so-called “war on terror”, it was not to end there. Only two years afterwards, America had a nightmare of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in Iraq, or perhaps, a pleasant dream of “Oil”. Ironically, it was “Operation Iraqi Liberation” which was soon changed to “Operation Iraqi Freedom” because it would have been too obvious. As in the case of Afghanistan, the prescribed goal of America have not yet been achieved, though hundreds of thousands of innocent people have suffered immeasurably at the hands of America on one hand, and Israel on the other.

Operation Cast Lead is what Knesset likes to call it. Three weeks into the operation and more than 900 people are reported dead. Half of those happen to be women and children. Israel plans to “put an end to Hamas’ rocket firing ability into Southern Israel” while the world stands and stare at this inhumane brutality. When the whole world condemned the bloodbath, America was the only veto power to abstain from the resolution. While the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice led a resolution into the United Nations Security Council, 14 out of 15 members embraced it, the one who did not, was ironically the one who brought it, America. Ehud Olmert, Israel’s Prime Minister in an interview to a channel talked about how he “called President Bush” and told him that “The United States could not and cannot sign this resolution” after which the President directed his Secretary of State to abstain from the resolution. While innocent blood is being shed in Gaza, one may look around and see that it is also being shed in Afghanistan and Iraq. While Gaza bleeds, the Kingdom of Heaven seems to be undone!

It is said that every rise has a fall, if this is the fall of the Muslims, there certainly awaits the fall of the brutalities and tortures being committed in the world; the war of terror that is being played on the world stage, disguised as the war “on” terror. The question remains, when? When will the Muslims be able to regain their prestige, their glory, and that formidable stature they once had? When will these massacres of innocent lives end? And, when will the Kingdom of Heaven rejoice in blissful eternity? But perhaps, the French Prime Minister, Georges Clemenceau was right in his saying that “It is far easier to make war than to make peace.”

Pakistan In the Wake of U.S. Elections (2008)

One of the most followed US-elections, not only in Pakistan’s history, but the world history, the 2008 American elections arose hopes and fears around the globe. Political analysts were providing detailed analysis and synthesis of views and statements of the two rival candidates; who were in constant struggle against one another to convince the American public about their respective, economic, social, military, and most importantly foreign agendas. Mr. Barack Obama made history by being the first black President of the world’s oldest and best democracy. The Illinois senator defeated his Republican opponent in one of the most expensive and widely covered election campaigns in world history. John McCain, a republican, following in his party’s footsteps, followed a “realist” view, while the moderate Democrat, Obama, blended his views and would-be neo-liberalist foreign policy with a realistic touch. Republicans and Democrats are two faces of a mighty leviathan, with their respective policies being based on the international relations theories of “realism” and “neo-liberalism”. Although, a difference between the foreign policy of the parties is eminent, American foreign policy has been the global policy since its rise as a superpower. Which party has been better for Pakistan, is a matter of taking a quick glance in history. Pakistan has been the “most allied ally” for several times since the Republican President, Eisenhower first coined the term for the country in the fifties, and it still is the “most allied ally” under the Republican Bush regime. A front line state in the war on terror, President-Elect, Obama has many expectations from the democratic-government of Pakistan, and Islamabad has many hopes. The relations between India and Pakistan have touched a new low in the wake of the Mumbai terrorist attacks and the role of the new US administration to ease tensions between the nuclear rivals is very clear. Building a strategic partnership with Pakistan has to be one of the most important steps that the new American government should look at, from supporting the country with military aid, to providing economic aid, a solid foundation for democratic institutions to function properly and a strong country to fight against the global menace of extremism and terrorism.

Although, American foreign policy is largely the outcome of institutions, such as the Congress and the House of Representatives, Presidents can, and usually do bring about a considerable change with them. The two biggest parties of America, Republicans and Democrats, base their respective policies on sound international relations’ theories of realism, neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. With individuals joining the parties based on their own views of international politics, and coinciding with the party. Republicans have proven to be considerably different than their counterparts in terms of their economic as well as foreign policies; however, one thing has been common, and that is American foreign policy, has been the global policy, whether it is a Republican or Democrat government.

America’s interests are not only bound to areas around itself, but around the globe. As Richard N. Haas and Martin Indyk in their essay titled “Beyond Iraq” in the January/February 2009, issue of Foreign Affairs call it, the “energy policy is foreign policy”. Whether it is the Middle East, or the Far East, American interests are many, and far away; Pakistan is no exception. Pakistan enjoys a considerable geo-strategic position on the globe, and has been the center of attention for quite a number of times. With the ever-increasing threat of terrorism and extremism on its western border, to the coming US-administration, Pakistan has an ever-increasing role to play.

If one takes a glance in history, it does give one a view that Republicans have proven to be somewhat better for Pakistan, and mostly it was under the Democrats that Pakistan has faced sanctions. When in 1979 the Democrat President, Jimmy Carter laid sanctions on Pakistan for its nuclear program, the Republican Reagan gave gigantic aid to Pakistan that went into containing Russian invasion of Afghanistan. October 1990, under the “Pressler Amendment” the new Republican President, G.H.W Bush suspended all military and economic aid to Pakistan. Under the Democrat government of Bill Clinton, Pakistan faced many more sanctions for not being a democratic country to pursuing its nuclear program. When Al-Qaida struck the U.S., Pakistan’s support was vital, on the helm of affairs was the Republican President, G.W Bush; we were either with them, or with the terrorists. Not only did the economic, but military aid was resumed, and Pakistan was turned into a frontline ally state. Sanctions were waived year after year, and the country saw strengthening relations with America. Eight years from the day, America, in harmony, sang for “Change”. Will the new administration really bring about a drastic change, with respect to Pakistan-US relations? Obama sees the threat in Afghanistan, and has talked about a “responsible pull-out” from Iraq to increase forces in Afghanistan; will this demand a closer cooperation between Washington and Islamabad?

Terrorism is a global phenomenon. The greatest threat to Pakistan, currently, lies on its western border. To counter it, it not only needs to do more, but needs effective training and aid from its Western Allies, along with more Allied forces in Afghanistan. President-Elect Obama, realizes this, and has called for a pull-out of American forces from Iraq, for further deployment in Afghanistan. Obama’s Vice President, Joe Biden has called for more economic aid to Pakistan for strengthening its democratic foundations to successfully curb the menace of terrorism. Although, Obama has talked about sending US troops on Pakistani soil, “with or without the governments permission”, it is only if Pakistan “fails to do the needful”. War on terror is one of the main points of the next American government’s foreign policy, and to bring about a successful end to it. To do the “needful” Pakistan expects a sound coalition, based on equal footing, and America expects unconditional support.

President Zardari, and Prime Minister Gilani expect the new American government to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty, and to provide intelligence to Pakistani government so it can do the needful itself. President-elect Obama and his Vice President, Joe Biden, have called for increased aid to Pakistan, so it can effectively deal with the growing threat of terrorism and support its institutions. President-Elect Obama has also called for an effective solution of the Kashmir problem between India and Pakistan. This, according to the coming American government, will prove to be a strategic outcome of great importance, for Pakistan will be able to concentrate its energies on the western border when it has no threat on its eastern border. Joe Biden has earlier proposed a 15 billion dollar economic aid plan for Pakistan’s crippling economy, which Pakistan not only needs, but deserves. Democrats have usually opposed the idea of “unilateralism” and the policies of neo-con lobby of America, which has undermined the sovereignty of Pakistan. Will these changes in agendas, thoughts, and ideas bring about a change for Pakistan? Or due to increased tensions on the eastern border, Pakistan will have to concentrate on its long term rival, India? Should the Democrat government of America pursue the role of a mediator between the two volatile actors of the South Asian region? Obama’s policy has been very straight about it, yes.

In the wake of the recent terrorist activity in Mumbai, Pakistan-India relations have touched a new low. Inflammatory and irresponsible comments from Pakistan’s neighbour have created considerable amounts of tensions in Islamabad, and the focus has shifted from the War on Terror it was fighting. The new American government does not want that. For the very reason, Obama’s policy has been to bridge the gaps between the nuclear armed neighbours and as a result, secure the Allied forces supply lines, and enhance cooperation from Pakistan. With terrorism expanding like cancer cells from one country to another, Pakistan has a very difficult task to accomplish. The coming U.S. government has offered unconditional support for a serious effort in return from Pakistan; to achieve that, a strategic partnership between the two countries is a requirement.

A lot of Pakistani’s do not see in America a reliable ally. They feel betrayed, and left alone at times of their need, and used at times of America’s. For the very reason, America needs to build a long-term strategic partnership with its “most allied ally” for its unconditional support, and for the destruction of terrorism. Obama should make it clear that America is not against Islam or the spread of Islam, but the terrorist activities being taken under the name of Islam; that America is not on a crusade against Islam, but on a crusade against extremism and terrorism. Islamabad does not favourably look at the nuclear deal given to its long-time hostile neighbour and it does not appreciate, rather feels betrayed, when America opposes the nuclear cooperation between China and Pakistan. Where Pakistan needs to share intelligence and act as a responsible state, America needs to do the same. With the Democrat government about to take oath on the 20th of January, 2009, many in Islamabad hope to see the same. Pakistan looks for a sound strategic alliance with America, and does not look forward to be used as an instrument of change, rather a partner for change. Whether it was the Republican John McCain, or the now President-Elect Barack Obama, Pakistan, in the wake of U.S. elections is bound to undergo a change. What Pakistan looks for, and what Obama asks for, has been all over the media for the past months, how Washington and Islamabad will join hands to make a stronger commitment and a solid strategic partnership is a question of great importance, and can only be answered by time.

With the focus again shifting, this time from Iraq to Afghanistan, one thing is sure; Pakistan has a greater role to play in this part of the world. When policies will change in Washington; the neo-cons giving way to the neo-liberalists, they will affect policies in Islamabad. President-Elect Barack Obama will take office on the 20th of January, 2009, and the change that America needs, and the change that the world needs, may come. How far American policy will affect Pakistan is not a question, but how “will” American policy affect Pakistan-US relations is the question. The two faces of the mighty leviathan, Democrats and Republicans fought tooth and nail to get to the seat of power, and Democrats proved their mettle by winning the elections. As a superpower, it is but sure that the American interests engulf the whole world, its policy has to be the global policy, but the coming Democrat government sees the main point of focus in Afghanistan and not Iraq. It wants to strive to negotiate, unlike the Republican nominee, John McCain, who was against all negotiations with respect to Iran. Obama’s government wants to focus on Afghanistan, and curb terrorism from its roots, and for that, it looks to Pakistan’s cooperation. Obama wants to pursue the role of a mediator to come across a successful proposal for the Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan. For the first time, it looks in years that America is looking sincerely towards issues of great importance, and to help resolve them; through politics and diplomacy, and not unilateralism. President-Elect Barack Obama with his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden, are a new energetic team on the helm of not only American, but world affairs. Pakistan, in today’s world is at a critical point, and the new government of America realizes that, it realizes the needs of Pakistan as an ally, and most importantly as a country with the given geo-strategic importance. Pakistan looks for a strategic partnership with America, and Obama calls for a change, the essence of the American foreign policy might remain the same, but the majority of Democrats will bring about a change, and that change is bound to affect countries that are critical to American interests. U.S. does not look forward to a disintegrated, weak ally; it looks forward to a strong committed country to fight terrorism; peace in the South Asian region, and democracy in Pakistan. With so much at stake, and many hopes on the verge, one can be only cynical if one believes things to turn a hundred and eighty degrees and a sudden change to happen. Much might be available for Islamabad, and much might be given to Washington, but yet, many pages might remain untouched and many rocks unturned.