Quo vadis?

Post-war Britain created two nation states that derived their legitimacy from religion - Israel in 1948 and Pakistan in 1947. It is not a coincidence that both the countries have become nuclear states and are crucial for the United States, particularly in its control of the vital Persian Gulf oil lanes. Is it curious, then, that both the states are in ferment today, seeking to crush, annihilate or humiliate their region's original inhabitants - the Palestinians and the Pushtoon tribals? Though they appear to be at a make-believe ideological variance, both are tethered to American policies as key non-NATO states.

(That the resistance to this neo-colonial sub-plot has mutated from secular, Left-leaning armed groups - the original advocates of Pakhtoonistan and free Palestine - into religious rabble rousers like the Taliban and Hamas, follows the logic of a similar passage that was allowed to accrue to religion in preference to communist threats elsewhere - from the Philippines to Algeria and beyond.)

The exit of Gen Pervez Musharraf as Pakistan's president, and the rise of Asif Ali Zardari as his potential successor, is almost a predictable scenario. Zardari is, may be, the Mahmoud Abbas (President, Palestine) the Americans are looking for in Pakistan. And, like the Israeli Armed Forces, the Pakistani army is the perpetual constant should something go wrong with the perennial experiments that are needed to keep the levers of political power from falling into unassigned hands.

So, in the foreseeable future, we could see Zardari as the civilian face of Pakistani power that ultimately rests
with the armed forces. A serious complication, however, arises because the army has had to adapt its approach to religion over a period of time. To that extent, the sharp ideological U-turns it has taken from the days of Gen Ayub Khan to Gen Musharraf via Gen Zia ul Haq has created a range of motivations among its foot soldiers as also among the elite cadres that are often at sharp variance with each other.

From all accounts, Musharraf had a liberal demeanour and liked to raise the elbow in the evening. And he kept pet dogs. This was just the opposite of the quest for the Nizam-e-Mustafa that Zia had embarked upon. Let it also be made explicit that there has never been any contradiction between liberal leaders using reactionary ideas in pursuit of power. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto loved wine, but he was the author of prohibition
in his country.

So how does the turmoil in Pakistan affect the rest of the world? In many ways, or not at all! The effect depends on the situation. I can't remember a story that has gripped the entire world at once, whether it was man's landing on the moon or the attack on New York's World Trade Centre. There was always something else happening of greater local interest elsewhere, occasionally even a cricket match.

Musharraf's farewell speech coincided with Michael Phelps discussing plans to convert his sensational eight gold medals in Beijing into something more meaningful, perhaps by acquiring an Olympic-sized pool in Baltimore.

There was a range of reactions in India to the speech, which was broadcast live by private TV channels and that boosted their TRP ratings. The intelligence community had their own axe to grind. The security thinkers who made their appearance on Indian channels that suddenly got enthused saw Gen Musharraf's departure from another prism. The overarching feeling was reflected in the easiest of comments people make. His exit was good for democracy, but uncertainties remained. Unlike the tight TV close-ups beamed from Pakistan of people rejoicing, few in India saw these as reflecting reality.