Of times lost


The daily sunset ritual — with its coordination, discipline and precision — a reminiscence of the warlike condition between the two neighbours, India and Pakistan may be an enjoyable spectacle but what is the point of having this carefully choreographed piece of pantomime aggression?
Is it a call to rally around the flag? Or a display of uber-patriotism and feel-good jingoism? Is it a benign Indo-Pak version of the Roman gladiatorial contests — a redundant spectacle embodying nothing but posturing? Or is it simply where tourism meets nationalism?
·

REMINISCENCE OF THE 1965 WAR

·

by Ayaz Amir

·

Back from a trip to Amritsar and Delhi on Wednesday evening, and too tired to go on to Chakwal as I had meant to – PIA never disappointing, the flight from Delhi late by three hours – I sought refuge under the roof of the Avari, where my poverty usually takes me when in the favoured city of the Emperor Jahangir.

And as I sat down to write this on Thursday morning, from somewhere down below on the Mall – it will always be the Mall whatever patriotic name we give it – came the ever-enchanting voice of Noor Jahan the Second, the first being the royal consort of Jahangir.

She was singing that haunting song, “Rah-e-haq ke shaheedo…”, a tribute to the martyrs of the 1965 war, and it came suddenly to me that this was the Defence of Pakistan Day, an anniversary remembered with less and less fervour as the years pass…not because respect for our fighting soldiers has in any way diminished but because the truth about that conflict is now more widely understood.

It was a war that Pakistan did not seek; it was a war into which it stumbled. The hawks – the two leading ones being Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and the 12 Division Commander, Maj Gen Akhtar Hussain Malik – forgot to make the little calculation that any adventure undertaken in Kashmir would impel or tempt India to straighten out the balance somewhere else, at a time and place of its choosing.

When our Kashmir adventure turned into a serious threat to Indian forces in Kashmir, to no one’s surprise except ours Indian forces crossed the international border on the front stretching from Sialkot to Lahore.

Our soldiers fought bravely, at places magnificently, as did junior officers up to the level of battalion commanders. A few brigadiers too distinguished themselves. (The Indian official account of the war, which can be read on the net, generously mentions the performance of some of our fighting units.)
And of course the air force acquitted itself superbly. But if one looks for Mansteins in the higher echelons of command one is likely to be disappointed. There were none, not one strategic manoeuvre worth remembering.

Our self-appointed field marshal, Ayub Khan Tareen, lived to rue his blunder. After the war he was no longer the same man and his grip on national affairs weakened. The supreme irony of course was that Bhutto whose role in pushing the war was second to none exploited the outcome, and the subsequent Tashkent agreement, to spread the insinuation that had not Ayub chickened out our forces would have won a signal triumph…which of course was complete nonsense.

Premier Chou En-lai counselled a bewildered field marshal to conduct a guerrilla war, vacating cities if they had to be vacated and conducting a war from behind every bush and boulder. But he could have been preaching to the mountains.

In September 1965, India and Pakistan fought the war over Kashmir. Fearing that this regional conflict could escalate into a conflict of global dimensions, the Soviet Union and the United States pressurized the U. N. to arrange an immediate ceasefire.
The diplomatic efforts of the United Nations resulted in a ceasefire that came into effect on September 23, 1965.
After the ceasefire, it was due to the efforts of Soviet Premier Kosygin, that India and Pakistan signed a declaration that is known as the Tashkent Declaration.

The ceasefire when it came, with no little pushing by the superpowers, came not a moment too soon for our exhausted high command.

But for years and years the mythology persisted, and it was woven into a national legend, that India was out to destroy Pakistan and would have succeeded but for our brave armed forces. The Defence of Pakistan Day commemorates this historiography.

This mythology would not have mattered if it had not led to lasting, and baleful, consequences. We had a fairly open relationship with India until then. But with the war the barriers went up and all ties were cut; defence spending sharply increased; more divisions were raised.
The ramparts of the national security state rose higher. And barriers went up in our minds as well. India was the enemy and this doctrine superseded all others.

We had been doing fairly well economically, ahead then of such states as Malaysia and South Korea. The war put us off the rails completely.
(The only good to come of it were the war songs of Noor Jahan, which are still a marvel to listen to.) With the 1971 war the dogmas learned from the 1965 conflict were reinforced.

Strange, is it not, that the brightest politician of his age should have been the prime carrier of this policy of revanchism and hate? We will fight for a thousand years, was one of his clarion calls, anti-Indianism a plank – nay, an essential component – of his extraordinary success in Punjab in the 1970 elections.
And it was Punjab which catapulted him to national power, not Sindh.

Think again…Punjab dyed in the hues of chauvinism, the country as a whole wedded to the notion of undying hostility towards India…the high priest of this doctrine was the secular, de luxe whisky-sipping (occasionally guzzling) Bhutto. Who listens to the boring lectures, or the stale oratory, of the custodians of the two-nation theory headquartered permanently in Lahore?
Bhutto’s oratory had a mesmeric effect on the Punjabi mind. And his oratory had two key components: pseudo-revolutionism and jingoistic nationalism.

Only now are the barriers raised then coming down slowly, not because of any fresh dawn of enlightenment but the pressure of cruel circumstances. Our army is engaged in no fake adventure on the eastern front. It is caught in a real and brutal war on our western marches, battling an enemy all the more sinister because the strength and staying power of that enemy comes not from evil Jew or conniving Hindu but from within our own ranks.

Our Indian wars, no matter the causes, were simple, black-and-white affairs. We knew who the army was and Noor Jahan had no trouble singing the glories of our valour, real or imaginary. The war we are now engaged in is so much more complex because the enemy is not only the visible enemy we see, cutting the throats of our soldiers in the name of Islam. The enemy is also our own confusion which still cannot make out what is at stake.

At stake is the nation’s soul, its direction. We emerge from the smoke and fire of this conflict and we can hope for national salvation. We lose, or remain victims of confusion, and we might as well seek a confederation with Somalia or the Sudan (with apologies to both these nations).

A Pakistan which has forsaken the tolerance sought to be inculcated by its founding fathers, a Pakistan losing no sleep at the persecution of its minorities and the killing of Shias, a country which can countenance the victimisation of an Aasia Bibi or a Rimsha Masih, is a country in dire need of asking some hard questions of itself. All injustice is bad; injustice perpetrated in the name of religion is infinitely worse.

We can be such hypocrites. Are the lives of the Caliphs dead pieces of parchment or living examples to follow? What would the great Omar have done if after a short absence from Makkah he had come to know of the plight of a young Christian girl, Rimsha Masih?

There and then he would have fired the interior minister, the Rehman Malik of his time, and asked the inspector general of police, the kotwal, to run round the city walls with a knapsack on his back. And he would have carried the girl Rimsha on his shoulders to her house and asked her mother if they had enough to eat, and if anything was found wanting, on bended knee he would have cried for Allah’s forgiveness. For was it not Omar who said that if a dog went hungry by the banks of the Euphrates he, the Caliph, would be asked about it on the Day of Judgment?

The Islam which spread so fast from the sands of the Hejaz was a thing of achievement and glory. And to think what we have made of it in this republic founded in the name of Islam?

Email: winlust@yahoo.com

More from Ayaz Amir on Wonders of Pakistan

1. Caesar’s wife and the burden of suspicion 2 What the ages couldn’t accomplish… 3. Pakistan’s Punjab problem 4.Where nonsense has a life of its own 5. Punjab can no longer live in a state of denial 6. Changing the Way We Have Been 7. What’s Pakistan being taken for?
Ayaz Amir is a columnist and a politician. A member of the National Assembly of Pakistan, Amir is known for his op-eds which appear in the leading national dailies of Pakitan. Ayaz Amir is a liberal who passionately argues the case for rule of law, democracy, and an end to failed militay rule alongwith extremist versions of Islam.
 Source    Title image   Image next

YOUR COMMENT IS IMPORTANT

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF YOUR COMMENT

Wonders of Pakistan supports freedom of expression and this commitment extends to our readers as well. Constraints however, apply in case of a violation of WoP Comments Policy. We also moderate hate speech, libel and gratuitous insults.
We at Wonders of Pakistanuse copyrighted material the use of which may not have always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” only. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32,034 other followers