Trump versus Hillary;Who WILL WIN

 

It is 9:16 a.m on the East Coast in America, Tuesday the 8^th of November, 2016,  as I try to extrapolate whose chances of winning are greater in the current US election.

It will not surprise me at all if Donald Trump wins the current election for a very simple reason: he represents  “change. ” In 2008, Americans voted Obama in because they had a strong desire for change. The desire has since become overwhelming as Obama has not satisfied it during the last eight years.

The ongoing slow-down in US economy is relentless. Economy is currently less than half of what it was in fifties and sixties. Productivity growth is less than half of one percent of what it used to be in living memory of those who are now in their sixties. According to a recent study by Harvard Business School, the growth in productivity figure puts America within the group of the last three countries in the OECD. The young urban professionals, who lost jobs and homes during the last eight years, have yet to regain the prosperity levels they ‘believe’ they deserve as Americans. For the next two decades, the Americans will continue to vote for change if things don’t turn around for them, for that is how long it takes a population to accept the fact that its living framework may have changed permanently.

Under the circumstances, it seems poor planning on the part of the Democrats to field a candidate seeped in established ways and so opposite of what Obama represented as a candidate in 2008. Hilary is not likely to win because she is a woman any more than Obama did not win because he was Afro-American. Obama won the 2008 election because of his rhetoric of change.

Trump may not be as media savvy as Obama. Though self-assured, he is no-where near as rhetorical as Obama, but he caters to the desire for change in 2016 just as Obama did in 2008, even more so. Americans long for transparency and truthfulness; Hilary reminds them of Bush era secrecy and lawlessness. They believe their financial institutions have been irresponsible in handling their money and no one has tried to regulate them better because their leaders are “afraid.” Trump appears bold enough to undertake change, even to a seemingly scandalous extent.

Early voting has already shown a 45% turn out, hence the apathy factor is not there. It is telling me that those who were previously yielding are now going to demand that power be shared and their candidate of choice for conveying the same demand is going to be Donald Trump.

Obama campaigned for Hilary with much rigor. Obama’s rhetoric may fail him in 2016.

Pakistan’s Stability Challenge

Prime Minister Nawaaz Sharif’s government is neck deep in trouble over Panama Leaks. He is accused of money laundering amidst evidence from the horses’ mouth in clear and convincing manner. Sharif’s own family and important members of his party have unknowingly made statements that malign Nawaz Sharif.

Imran Khan has threatened a shut down of the federal government through people’s power on November 2^nd unless or untill Sharif resigns and presents himself for accountability over Panama revelations. The Supreme Court of Pakistan is in the process of hearing the petition that prays for Nawaz’s disqualification as PM of Pakistan. The religious political parties and non political religious entities such as seminaries are rumored to be joining the force of people Imran Khan has threatened to lead to Islamabad because corruption is against fundamental values of Islam. The military establishment is terribly unhappy over the recent Dawn gate scandal, wherein some member of the civilian government leaked to the media a conversation that took place in Islamabad between the military leadership and the civilian leadership at the highest level. The leak compromises national security and strengthens New Delhi’s campaign against Pakistan at a time the latter is at its highest pitch to distract domestic and international attention from the fact that Kashmir has slipped out of India’s control. The public is angry with the Sharif government for not doing enough to bring Indian atrocities in occupied Kashmir to international attention. Those not thinking politically are also angry because they are hungry and are thus likely to join the agitation against the government.

A show down is approaching on November 2^nd, when Imran’s sit in is scheduled to begin in Islamabad. There are whispers that the military will back the sit in. If so, it will be an important determinant of the outcome. Of course, a more important determinant will be the answer to the following question “who will back the Sharif government when the push comes to shove?”

One does not find the Supreme Court inclined to back the government, given the recent pronouncements of the judges in matters related to quality of governance in Pakistan. Political parties are no longer willing to support Nawaz Sharif for the sake of supporting democracy, as they did in 2014, when the PTI and the PAT staged sit in against the Sharif government in front of the Parliament for four months. Imran Khan’s uncompromising stand against evident corruption is lionizing him and will dwarf other parties if they do not join in the call for accountability.

Nawaz Sharif’s government is precariously placed on a very slippery slope. Even if it arrests Imran Khan and the rest of PTI leadership in the nick of time to prevent the avowed shut down of Islamabad on November 2^nd, there are other powerful layers of discontent that it will not be able to pack in a sack and cushion itself till the 2018 election.

Corruption is a cancer that prevents progress and prosperity in a nation state. Lack of stability also prevents progress and prosperity in a nation state.  Hence the fundamental question we need to ask ourselves is; can we get rid of the pathogens without endangering the body?

More than Nawaz Sharif is at stake here. There is the political party called PML (N), a competitive political entity that survived years of intense persecution and exile of leadership from 1999 to 2008. Not all its members are involved in Panama Leaks. Some have served their respective constituencies diligently and are capable and honest politicians. Democracy can not happen in a vacuum. It needs political parties to survive and political parties need members with grass root connections to thrive. PML (N) has the same in no small measure, notwithstanding allegations (and some validation) of rigging in the 2013 general election.

Should Panama Leaks be allowed to kill or enfeeble the entire construct called PML (N), or should the party be allowed to survive the accountability process (and outcome) of its principle leader Nawaz Sharif. When tackling questions of this nature, the thought at all levels, and within all entities, must be institutional, not personal.

Were Nawaz Sharif to look at PML (N) as the political entity that must survive the crisis of its leader’s credibility, he would step aside and allow another member to step  in till the next general election in 2018. The stock market will continue operating at its optimal levels. The government will continue its projects to the end (barring the ones stalled by law). The PML (N) public representatives will continue serving their constituencies, even more rigorously perhaps, to prevent the leadership crisis from marring the image of the entire party and to enable its come back in the next elections. As they say, the party must go on.

The country will thus avert a crisis. The Supreme court will still handle what it must, ruling over Nawaz’s fate after examination of evidence. The media must scrutinize the affair of civil-military stand off in Pakistan, leading to either the civilians getting exiled (as did Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif) or the fallen military ruler getting exiled, as General Musharref had to after his civilian adversary made a come back through election in 2008.

The fact is, Nawaz Sharif was financially persecuted when he was removed from office by General Pervez Musharraf, when no scandal regarding financial irregularities was attached to Sharif yet. The media, including the larger civil society, must define the boundaries within which incumbents can deal with their political adversaries by asking some soul searching and necessary questions regarding our behavior at the apex. Political discord must not result in financial persecution of the adversaries by the incumbent. Such conduct is unbecoming of civilized leadership. Political exiles are borne of petty politics that demean an entire nation.

For now, it is Nawaz Sharif’s call to pay his party members back for the loyalty they showed to PML (N) by sticking to the party during all its crises, the most serious of which lasted from 1999 to 2008. Needless to mention, Panama Leaks is a personal crisis for Nawaz Sharif. Sharif has no moral reason to allow it to become a crisis for Pakistan – or an existential crisis for the entire PML (N), a precious political institution that must continue to contribute to the smooth functioning of democracy in Pakistan.

If Nawaz Sharif does not step aside voluntarily, the current government will be forced out of office and its members, who are innocent of any crime, will also get bruised. This time, it may be one hit too many for the party because the moral reason for unity against all odds is no more.

A New Phenomenon is Rising in Pakistan’s Politics

A new phenomenon is rising in Pakistani politics in the shape of 28 year old Bilawal Bhutto Zardari and it is not because he is the scion of the most resilient political dynasty in Pakistan. It is Bilawal’s political astuteness that astonishes one as being beyond his years in politics. He has shown superior acumen in dealing with his chief rivals, Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif. Both are more than twice his age and have been active in politics decades longer.

Bilawal showed up for the All Parties Conference Nawaz Sharif convened on October 5^th  to address the Kashmir issue, at a time the latter’s leadership is taking intense heat over  money laundering accusation post Panama leaks. Bilawal was the sole beneficiary of the post conference media limelight as Imran  Khan did not attend the conference. He told media that his cooperation with the government is confined to Kashmir alone as the issue requires national unity. Having established that he is cognizant of leadership priorities, Bilawal then availed the post conference media time as Nawaz Sharif’s most scathing  critic. He did not let his attendance at the APC appear as endorsement of Nawaz’s leadership by predicting that in the 2018 election, his party will be in power while Nawaz Sharif will be in jail over money laundering.

Bilawal thus had it both ways.  He made his first appearance as a leader at a conference attended by all parties, and used it to emphasize his commitment to the cause of Kashmiri freedom from India’s bondage, (thus becoming the voice of the masses) while putting Imran Khan in the dock for choosing to stay out. He then availed the same podium for vociferous disapproval of Nawaz Sharif.

Yet another example of Bilawal’s shrewdness in dealing with his political opponents is the way he appreciated Imran Khan for mobilizing masses against corruption and went on to criticize the latter for not showing the  “way forward” i.e., not announcing the date when the PTI will shut down Islamabad, as promised by Imran Khan at an earlier rally. Imran Khan took the bait and declared the date of 30^th of October in haste, it seems, as the 30^th of October happens to be a Sunday when Islamabad is closed anyway. PTI has since moved the date to November 2^nd.

Bilawal used the information supplied by IK to preempt IK’s mass mobilization derive by starting his own earlier. In doing so, Bilawal has again come across as a shrewd player with the ability to read the political pulse of the masses.  Politicians in Pakistan generally eschew political activity during Moharram,  a month when Shia pakistanis take out mourning processions all over the the country and remember the slain grandsons and other members of Prophet Muhammad’s  (PBUH) family in the most emotive manner.

Bilawal utilized the ethos of mourning during Moharam for political mobilization by declaring the mass rally of October 16^th as the commemoration of the martyrdom of Pakistanis who died during the terror attack on his mother’s welcoming caravan in Karachi in 2007, when nearly two hundred people died and many more were injured.

During his address at the rally, Bilawal merged his political narrative with the religious narrative of Moharram, referring to himself as the grandson of slain (shaheed) Bhutto, the son of slain (shaheed) Benazir, and the son of the soil, saturated time and again with his family’s blood. He then addressed not the people of Pakistan but Jinnah, the man who created Pakistan, and wailed that Pakistan had fallen way short of the dream dreamed by the great leader who created it. Bilawal then undertook to fulfill the dream of the great ‘Quaid” and asked people to support him in the process.

Politics is the battle of narratives. Bilawal has pitched his “Quaid’s Pakistan” narrative versus Imran’s “new Pakistan” narrative. Imran can not possibly take on the narrative that “Quaid’s Pakistan must be built” because this is a narrative whose sanctity is enshrined in Pakistan’s history.

Bilawal denigrated his opponents at the October 16 rally with labels that reflect public perception, instead of hurling baseless allegations as is the custom in Pakistani politics. Imran Khan, for instance, is described by his opponents as working on zionist agenda and as the enemy of Pakistan, a description so divorced from public perception that instead of harming Imran Khan, the criticism ends up depriving its very maker of credibility. Pakistanis know Imran Khan as a committed nationalist and a thoroughly honest person. This is an entrenched public perception of Imran Khan. His sagacity, however, is another matter.

A smart politician hits his opponent where it can hurt the most.  Bilawal termed Imran Khan “immature” whose childish style of opposing Nawaz Sharif is actually benefiting the latter. Instead of using the word corrupt for Nawaz Sharif, (which applies to Zardari as well) Bilawal used the phrase “third time in PM office and yet thoroughly incompetent.”  Thus, while dwarfing his opponents, Bilawal preempted the most likely criticism of his own self – lack of maturity in years and political experience.

Political shrewdness notwithstanding, Bilawal exhibits a “passion” that has hitherto been the unrivaled attribute of his grandfather Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. It is this passion that will draw masses towards Bilawal in numbers the precedence of which lies only with ZAB in Pakistan’s political history.

His pasty smile is the only thing one wishes Bilawal did not have when dealing with the public. His handsome young looks are charming enough. He does not need a smile of the kind his father wore his audience down with when he was newly sworn into office.

Twenty eight year old Bilawal is sure to be a “phenomenon” in Pakistan’s politics in near future.  What is remarkable about the resilience of the Bhutto family in politics is the fact that the Bhuttos keep getting younger and younger as leaders of Pakistan. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the founder of the dynasty, was forty two when he assumed office of the President in 1971. Benazir, his daughter, was 35 when she was elected to the office of the Prime Minister.  Bilawal is 28 now and will be thirty if the general election takes place as scheduled. Young Bilawal is likely to reinvigorate not only the PPP but also  Pakistan’s leadership scenario.

Pakistan’s military leadership should heave a sigh of relief at the rising phenomenon of Bilawal as they are in dire need of erudite nationalist leadership that can articulate a winning narrative to counter the narrative of Pakistan’s multiple enemies and keep the polity strong and united within.

The Kashmir Uprising in India and China Pak Economic Coridor

The current Kashmir uprising is unprecedented. It is known not as an armed insurgency but as truly a mass uprising. Kashmiri activism for freedom from India has reached a decisive phase. A number of factors have been steadily building up to the current scenario.

 

With the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi in 1991, the prospect of Nehru Gandhi dynasty’s continued rule in India dimmed and with it, the emotional attachment of New Delhi to the state of Jammu and Kashmir also ended. India’s first Prime Minister, Nehru, was a Kashmiri Pundit. His fascination for Kashmir was no doubt handed down to his descendants who ruled India, with a brief interlude of Lal Bahadur Shastri’s premiership, until 1989. Thereafter, Kashmir became a peripheral rogue state in New Delhi’s perception, where people had to be beaten up to stay in line

 

The armed insurgency in Indian Occupied Kashmir, (IOK) backed by popular support, that started in 1989, led New Delhi to counter it with a martial law called the Armed Forces Special Powers Act.  With the passage of time, AFSPA turned into a draconian practice as none of the practitioners suffered a single act of accountability despite innumerable reports of rape, murder, and other heinous acts that promote the hatred of one group of people for the other. A new generation of Kashmiris grew up in the shadow of this hatred and when they decided to defy it with or without guns, they no longer covered their faces with balaclavas. They took pride in their righteous struggle and called for all young ones to join them in the fight for freedom from Indian bondage.

 

Against this backdrop in Kashmir, Narendra Modi enters Panchavati and brings with him a new style of ruling India. Under Modi, Hinduism in India has degenerated from being a ‘dominant’ culture to a ‘domineering’ one. Narendra Modi’s style of ruling India is a departure from one thousand years of governance practices in India.  While Modi government’s state sponsored Hindutva culture infused the Indian minorities with anxiety and insecurity in all parts of India, it made the Kashmiris ever more defiant of New Delhi.

 

Instead of placating the Kashmiris, Modi made attempts to repeal article 370 of the Indian constitution that grants the only Muslim majority state of Kashmir a special status in India. Among other provisions, the Article disallows non Kashmiris to own land in Kashmir. When the bid to repeal article 370 was frustrated by the inadequacy of numbers in the parliament, the BJP declared in May 2014 that abrogation of article 370 of the constitution was part of  the party’s core ideology and it will work in that direction whenever it gets the required numbers in Parliament.

 

There is now a new sense of endangerment in IOK – that the demographics of Kashmir will be engineered against the Kashmiri people.

 

Burhan Wani’s murder was the straw that broke the camel’s back. What poured out of every house at Burhan’s funeral was grief at the death of a young boy who dared other young boys to join in the struggle to protect Kashmiri women from rape and Kashmiri houses from intrusion at will  – plus a show of mass defiance of the Indian rule. The same is likely to grow from strength to strength. Kashmiris are not likely to stop now because they feel they have nothing to lose.

 

The mass uprising in Kashmir creates a catch 22 for the Modi government. Modi rose to power appealing to Hindu chauvinism. His very mystique is sectarian antipathy that instigates Hindu arrogance.  If Modi mollifies the Kashmiris during their most provocative narrative against Hinud India, his Hindu chauvinist appeal will diminish. It will seriously undermine his credibility with his Hindutva constituency while earning him little or no credibility with the Muslims in Kashmir. If he continues to suppress the mass uprising with brutalities, his government will receive negative publicity at home and abroad for killing and maiming unarmed people who are a minority in India. With the passage of time, a brutal policy in Kashmir will begin to affect India’s entire Muslim community.  The blow back could be in the shape of rampant terrorism.

 

Modi’ has three options. Option 1 is to defer to the various resolutions at the United Nations India has been a signatory to and sell a plebiscite in Kashmir to his constituency as a rite of passage that will facilitate India’s permanent membership at the UN Security Council, a status India has been lobbying for throughout the last decade.

 

Option  2 is to let the Kashmiri struggle for freedom evolve into a struggle for a sovereign state of Kashmir in the subcontinent – a new state carved out of both India’s and Pakistan’s side of Kashmir. Modi will welcome this because it would help scuttle the CPEC ambition of Pakistan as the territories that could go into the making of the sovereign state of Kashmir could consist of areas that are vital to Pakistan’s connectivity with China.

 

Modi’s third option is a history maker and requires erudition and vision that transcends biases that currently govern the politics of the subcontinent. He can agree to a plebiscite as soon as possible under UN aegis and respect the outcome of the plebiscite which, in all likelihood, is going to be IOK joining Pakistan. Kashmir is the only apple of discord between India and Pakistan. With the issue resolved,  there will be no more rationale to Indo-Pak hostility. With visionary  diplomacy conducted between India, Pakistan Iran and China, China Pak Economic Corridor (CPEC) could evolve into India-Pakistan-China – Iran- Central Asia trading bloc, which would give tremendous boost to regional economy. If Modi works to promote harmony between three nuclear armed states in Asia, and conducts himself in such a way as to promote trade in the region, history will remove the stigma of sectarian prejudice that surrounds Modi’s persona at present.

 

Which option is Modi likely to choose depends a great deal on how Pakistan handles the current Kashmiri uprising on the diplomatic front. i.e., whether it comes out the door running to support the Kashmiris or it sits on the fence long enough for the second option to materialize to India’s benefit.

 

Timing is critical to the realization of Pakistan’s long term security goals during the current Kashmiri uprising. During the first few months of the Kashmiri uprising, Pakistan can help shape an outcome that is favorable to Pakistan. Not just robust diplomatic activity on Pakistan’s part but the speed at which it is carried out is also critical.

 

If  Pakistan sits on the fence as India keeps brutalizing the Kashmiris, the ethos of the Kashmiri uprising could cease to be unity with Pakistan. Their struggle will instead get hinged to ‘Kashmiriat,’ in other words, a sovereign state for the people of Kashmir in South Asia. The ‘Azadi’ desire will develop an inevitable clamor for reunification of the two parts of Kashmir. In other words, the struggle in IOK could become one for Kashmiri unity and independence.  In due course, the Pakistani side of Kashmir will have elements who will resent Islamabad’s complacency in the face of cruelty meted out to their brethren in Kashmir. These elements will tow the unity and independence line in IOK. Funding and covert support from New Delhi will make the same elements grow in influence.

 

With the passage of time, Pakistan could become a hapless spectator of the Kashmiri clamor for independence from both India and Pakistan as New Delhi, at this point, will be amenable to a plebiscite in all of Kashmir. The ‘Kashmiriat’ clamor could impact the entire belt of Pakistan bordering China, leading to a decline in China’s enthusiasm for CPEC.

 

Give India time and New Delhi will use every means to make ‘Kashmir for Kashmiris’ cause hurt Pakistan. Kashmir is a peripheral state for India. If the Kashmiri clamor for freedom can be a means to thwarting Pakistan’s economic prospects, New Delhi will have an incentive in letting Kashmir go. In the event a new state of Kashmir is born in the subcontinent, it will not be allowed to grow and prosper in its own right. It will likely become an arena of cold war between India and Pakistan and China and India.

 

If Pakistan acts with speed, it can preempt negative developments for itself. Pakistan needs skillful diplomacy to make headway during the current Kashmir crisis. It needs fast track diplomacy. It needs to act not like a third party but the first party, one with Kashmiris. It needs to project internationally that  the matter is between Pakistan and Kashmir on one side and India on the other. If a third party is to be acknowledged in the crisis, it is UN. Pakistan should set aside bilateralism and push for UN involvement.

 

A multilayered diplomatic approach is required. Involvement of media diplomacy requires the construction and projection of a skillful narrative. “Political diplomacy” requires skillful utilization of multilateral forums and bilateral avenues. “Muslim diplomacy” requires reaching out to Muslim multilateral forums where sympathy for Kashmiri Muslims can be invoked on the basis of religious ties. “Historic context diplomacy” requires making the world see the insanity implicit in the division of Kashmir wherein the very body of water the indigenous people are gifted by providence has been cut into half, making it impossible for either side to utilize the water, for such is the state of affairs in the Neelum valley.  “Morality based diplomacy”  requires building a moral narrative that enervates the conscience of the international community.  “Domestic pressure aspect diplomacy” in which Pakistan’s love for Kashmiris in IOK is expressed on the streets of Pakistan and “emotional diplomacy,” in which the world is made to see how a people with a common bond have been torn asunder and how the torn part, under brutal occupation, is causing trauma to the mother part. Last but not the least the skillful enactment of “nuclear diplomacy” whereby the world sees that the Kashmir issue could be a nuclear flash point and thus requires attention. Nuclear diplomacy is a war of nerves and requires tough leadership.

 

Erudite, rigorous, speedy and skillful diplomacy is need of the hour. Today, this is a crisis for India and an opportunity for Pakistan. Tomorrow, time could shape it into a worse crisis for Pakistan. If Pakistan does not take control of the “timing” in this matter, time could move the flow of events against Pakistan.

 

The good news is, either way, our Kashmiri brethren are likely to get their freedom and unification finally, after long years of what can be fairly described as one of the most insane divisions of a community.

Rebuttal to Sushma Sawaraj on Kashmir

On July 23, 2016, while responding to Nawaz Sharif’s victory speech in Azad Kashmir, India’s foreign minister Sushma Swaraj called Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir ‘delusional.’ She described Pakistan’s support to the Kashmiri struggle for freedom as ‘exporting terrorism. ’ She also stated that Pakistan’s institutions are ‘duplicitous’ in their dealings with Kashmir.

For the record, Sushma Swaraj’s diatribe needs to be addressed point by point.

Ms. Swaraj terms Pakistan’s belief that Indian occupied Kashmir will one day become Pakistan ‘delusional.’ Delusion is divorced from reality. It signifies madness. Einstein aptly describes madness as repeating the same act over and over again and each time expecting a different result. India’s actions in Kashmir portray the same madness.

India keeps murdering popular Kashmiri leaders over and over again and each time believes the Kashmiri passion for freedom would go away when the leader is no more. From Maqbool Bhat (killed in 1989) to Afzal Guru  to Burhan Wani, India has repeatedly murdered Kashmiri leaders and hoped the clamor for freedom will be quelled thereafter. Each episode of killing has deepened Kashmiri passion for freedom and intensified the struggle to obtain it.

India’s expectation is grounded in the ‘delusion’ that the Kashmiri masses will accept Indian occupation if brutalized enough. For the past seventy years, India has continued to brutalize the Kashmiris under the same delusional belief. Is this not a play out of perennial delusional disorder in New Delhi?

Sushma Swaraj also alleges that Pakistan’s institutions follow a duplicitous policy on Kashmir. History bears witness to the fact that it is not Pakistan but Indian institutions who have acted and continue to act duplicitous in Kashmir. In 1948, New Delhi initiated the involvement of  the United Nations Organization in Kashmir and pledged that it will hold a plebiscite to decide the issue of Kashmir according to the wishes of the Kashmiri population. Subsequent actions reveal that India acted duplicitous when it ran to the UN to help end the war. It was merely buying time out of a war in which Pakistan enjoyed mass support in the field while India encountered mass hostility.

Faced with a choice between resolving the Kashmir issue through further bloodshed or through a peaceful plebiscite, Pakistan chose the latter. The lives of Kashmiris mattered to Pakistan then, as they matter now.  What matters for New Delhi is the real estate in  Kashmir, not the people of  Kashmir.

Further evidence of New Delhi’s duplicity in the matter is evident from  India’s truancy from UN over Kashmir. It is currently exemplified in her attitude towards  United Nations Military Observers Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP). Pakistan has consistently allowed UNMOGIP to find fact along the line of control and anywhere in Pakistan’s side of Kashmir while India has disallowed UNMOGIP to step out of its office premise at Sonawar in Srinagar.

Swaraj accuses Pakistan of exporting terrorism to Kashmir. India knows what it confront s in Kashmir is not terrorism but popular struggle for freedom, fed not by Pakistan but by India’s relentless repression of the Kashmiris. In  August 2015, India’s senior most commander in Kashmir General Saha told the media that there was zero infiltration from across the line of control. A year later, Kashmir is in the grip of revolutionary fervor for freedom like never before.  Disallowing the indigenous population peaceful plebiscite for self determination, the need of which is acknowledged and agreed to by India as early as 1948, is the root cause of unrest in Kashmir and the appeal of leaders like Burhan Wani. During the 1990 uprising against Indian occupation of Kashmir, the popular slogan was ‘Until a plebiscite is held, our struggle will continue.” In March 1990, more than a million Kashmiris marched onto the UNMOGIP headquarter in Srinagar and called for a UN supervised plebiscite. The Kashmiris continue to turn to the UN for help, as do the Pakistanis. India runs in the direction of brute force  and violence which in turn begets further violence.

India’s bid to deflect attention from its failure in Kashmir by chanting the terrorism mantra is not succeeding even at domestic level, let alone the international one. Kashmiris don’t want religious extremist law. They are educated, secular youth demanding right to self determination. It is the legitimacy of their cause, and the criminality of India’s action to counter it, that has led to the rise of voices in support of Kashmiri people inside other parts of India. The support shown at JNU campus since February of this year by Hindu students and members of faculty, the editorials in mainstream Indian newspapers,   and the pronouncements of senior Indian politicians such as Congress leader P. Chidambaram signify the widespread sympathy Kashmiri cause has begun to attract inside India itself.

Ms. Swaraj declares that the country that bombards its own people has no right to criticize India in Kashmir. Hope you watch TV and read news, Ms. Swaraj. Before the military operation began in FATA in the summer of 2014, the civilian population was cleared out of the area and moved to safer places where it was kept under state protection in full gaze of national and international media. Compare this to your government’s policy towards the hapless masses in Kashmir, who your troops are killing for sport.  Your head should hang in shame. Millions responded to Pak army’s call for evacuating FATA before the operation. Non Muslims and Muslims alike trusted the Pak army with their future and abandoned their homes to go to alternative places of sanctuary created for them by the state in Pakistan. Can India get even one thousand Muslims in occupied Kashmir to leave their homes and move to a place of safety outside the Occupied Kashmir, designated as IDP sanctuary by the Indian military? A thousand may be an unrealistic demand. Can the Indian military gain the trust and cooperation of even five hundred Kashmiri Muslims in this way?

Even the mightiest of armies have had to capitulate to people’s desire for self determination. The French had to surrender before an Algerian mass uprising even though they had succeeded in decimating the FLN. The Italians conceded in Libya. The Americans had to pull out of Vietnam. Russians pulled out of Afghanistan. Masses can not be held against their wish. Having involved the UN, instead of letting it handle the crisis in Kashmir, India has let its defense establishment handle it through AFSPA.

The barrel of a gun can never replace legal frameworks that govern peaceful existence in human societies. Kashmir will win freedom from India, Sushma Swaraj, not because Pakistan’s policy on Kashmir is ‘legitimate’ but because India’s policy in Kashmir is utterly ‘hopeless.’

 

Uses of Adversity

Maulana Abdul Sattar Edhi, (1928-2016) the founder of the largest philanthropic network in Pakistan, the Edhi Foundation, died today, on July 8^th, 2016, in Karachi, Pakistan after prolonged illness.

Maulana Edhi seems to have used every episode of adversity in his life as a building block for stronger character in himself. Since the age of eleven, he had to care for his paralyzed mother. It imbued him with an impassioned dedication to caring for the handicapped in society. Upon partition of the subcontinent in 1947, Maulana Edhi had to leave his hometown in India and moved to Pakistan, the newly created homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent. He arrived in the megacity of Karachi where he had to fend for himself as a poor emigrant without a home or means of livelihood. The same experience in adversity imbued him with a passion to provide for the destitute and the deprived.

All the passions of Maulana’s mind crystallized into dedicated and (therefore) most successful philanthropic practices that survive him in the shape of hundreds of orphanages, elderly care centers, homes for the mentally ill, free health care clinics, disaster management networks, worldwide ambulance services and much more. His funeral, to be held in a few hours in Karachi, is sure to be a historic gathering of the people of Pakistan, voluntarily assembled to pay homage to one of the greatest figures of South Asia –  indeed the world. In lives such as that of the Great Maulana, death becomes the greatest honor.

The Edhi Foundation had provided for the burial of hundreds of thousands of human beings during Maulan’s life time. The dead included victims of terrorism, victims of state atrocities, civil strife, victims of homelessness and destitution and victims of natural disasters alike. A perennial learner, Maulana seems to have learned a lesson while bearing the expense of shrouding the dead bodies and simultaneously bearing the expense of upkeep of the orphaned and abandoned children he adopted as his; that the living are more worthy of new clothes than the dead.

In his will that he be buried in the same clothes he wore at the time of death, Edhi the Sufi Saint has, after his fashion, silently and humbly tried to teach us the same lesson. I call upon all Pakistanis to consider his message and to adopt the practice. It will considerably ease the material burden of death on the surviving families who can hardly afford the material burden of life in the first place.

Buying healthy organs for sick bodies is the practice of the wealthy in society. If the rich follow  in Edhi’s footsteps and bequeath their healthy organs to the needy who can not afford to buy the same, imagine the corrective balance in health care system in our society such a practice will introduce. In order to promote the practice, the prominent and the powerful in Pakistan must lead the way. Coverage of the same practice during each prominent death in society will reinforce the message till it is adopted as a tradition cherished by all.

 

AND NOW THE GATED COMMUNITIES

 

On Easter Sunday, March 27, 2016, at 6:40 p.m, terror struck at the heart of Punjab, in the provincial capital of high economic activity called Lahore. The death toll is 68 and rising at the time of writing (23:54  GMT).  Hundreds are injured.

Pakistan has seen many terror attacks since 2007, with increasing frequency towards the end of Musharref’s rule (1999-2008) and throughout the rule of Asif Ali Zardari (2008-2013). During the aforesaid times, the target of attacks have been the low income and high density urban bazaars, whole sale vegetable markets, the mosques –  and only three times –  the centers of Pakistan’s security establishment.

Nawaz Sharif’s government was credited with the end of terrorism because during the last three years of his rule, terrorism dropped to the lowest level since it began in Pakistan ten years ago.

This feeling of commendation for the government is coming to an end in Pakistan. Terror is back – and this time with a new dimension. It is the high density guarded places that are being targeted. The Army Public School Massacre of 16^th December 2014, when 132 students were murdered, took place inside a guarded compound. The Bacha Khan University in Charsada, KPK, where 21 students were killed and sixty injured on January 20^th 2016, is also a guarded compound.

Today, on March 27^th, barely three days after Pakistan celebrated the Pakistan Day on March 23^rd amidst high security alert all over the country, the terrorists have struck a gated community living inside the four walls of a well-planned, upscale urban residency.  The community recreation park called Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park is designed to cater to the life style inside a guarded compound.

Far from over, terrorism seems to have grown in capacity.

The Lahore Park attack could not have come at a worse time for the government. The Pakistani media and street are both angry at the government for not publicizing internationally the case of Indian Spy, the RAW agent, (an officer of Indian Navy) who was recently caught under cover of jewelry seller in Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan. The religious community is furious over the hanging of Mumtaz Qadri. The latter was hung because he murdered the very governor he was employed to protect. The governor had  publicly wished to do away with the law aimed at protecting the sanctity of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

How the government handles the backlash from public remains to be seen. One thing is clear. Pakistan will have to revisit its security policy on terrorism. A red flag has been raised over high density urban service centers.  Hospitals, train stations, walled residential areas, educational institutions and upscale market places will have to be protected with new rigor.

It is clear that for the first time, the property and infrastructure of the affluent middle class is under threat in Pakistan.

This may cause the Nawaz government loss of elite support.  In South Asia, (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Srilanka, Nepal) it is not possible for a government to remain in office if the elite class develops the notion that the government is failing to protect it. During three hundred years of colonial rule, the poor in South Asia were marginalized, even brutalized. The British colonial legacy prevails in South Asia to date, as opposed to Central Asia where the communist cultural legacy is still relevant and Iran where the 1979 revolution led to devolution of power to the common man.

Terrorism, though rampant, was active at another level during Asif Ali Zardari’s rule. The attacks were generally at places where the poor congregate. Despite their frequency, Asif Zardari was able to rule to the end of his term.

The force that has planned the current version of terrorism in Pakistan, indigenous rebels or foreign intelligence, is taking this war to a new high.

The Lahore Park attack is also calibrated to strike at Pakistan’s political fault lines with scientific accuracy. What is alarming about this is the fact that the fault line (currently active in Islamabad’s red zone) was “created” recently where none existed before.

A whole blog is needed to explain this matter and will follow soon.

 

Implications of the Saudi-Yemen war

• Zeenia Satti
• February 26, 2016 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/Columnist/zeenia-satti 

From Daily Times.

A longer version of this article can be read below this page..

The Houthi rebels want an end to the Saudi monarchy and death to its western ‘patron’, the US. They seem to miss the fact that the Saudi-US relationship has ceased to be that of a patron-client since 2014. Riyadh and Washington are engaged in an adversarial relationship in the energy sector. Washington’s efforts at making itself energy independent through the shale gas revolution are frustrated by Riyadh’s decision to glut the market with cheap conventional oil. The Saudi move has ended what used to be frenzied investment in shale gas in the US, with a negative multiplier effect on the US economy.
Saudi Arabia felt more threatened by shale then it did by the 1979 revolution in Iran, Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the 2012 Arab uprising combined. The spread of shale will radically alter the international market for Arab energy-producing giants. Shale is easier to extract and shale LNG is cheaper to transport than conventional fuel. Shale’s environmental blow back is far greater than that of conventional fuel though and herein lies the success of Gulf producers’ efforts at driving shale out.

Hitherto, Saudi overproduction helped the US to hurt Iraq during sanctions against Saddam and, subsequently, Iran and Russia. During the aforesaid sanctions, an increase in Saudi production made up for the loss of oil from the sanctioned suppliers, keeping the energy markets stable and making sanctions succeed. The last two years are the only time in history when Saudi swing production has harmed the US. Saudi refusal to lower supply to raise the price is harming the US economy across the board where sudden withdrawal of shale investment has had a multiplier effect.
However, the US has still been exporting shale since January 2016 just to lower the price of oil further at a time Saudi Arabia needs revenue to fund the Yemen war and its own domestic reform. The timing of the removal of Iran sanctions is also a double-edged sword against Gulf oil producers. Additional supply from Iran will lower price further and scuttle Tehran’s ability to generate the required level of revenue. When threatening to dislodge the Sauds, the Houthis also seem to miss that it was the Saudi monarchy that made the overture in 2014 to unite the Arabian Peninsula as one economic and, possibly, political unit. Oman was the only country sceptical of the Saudi proposal.

Had Saudi Arabia succeeded in uniting the Peninsula Arabs, power sharing would have meant the dissolution of the Saud monarchy or the periodic circulation of power between different royal families. Hence, the Saudi monarchy was abdicating in favour of Peninsula unity. Such a move would have united the largest oil and gas resources in the world into one administrative unit, enhancing the political and financial power of the Arabian Peninsula. Yemen would be a likely beneficiary of such a development.
Saudi efforts at uniting the Peninsula Arabs may have triggered the allegation (without evidence) in the US press that Shah Salman suffers from dementia. Simultaneously, the Houthi rebels gained significantly more power than ever before and drove a Saudi allied ruler out of Yemen with hostile posturing towards Riyadh itself. The Saudis had to do something about the situation. Unfortunately, they chose what their detractors wanted: declaration of war against Yemen. The Saudis have lost the war on the moral front, where a rich country fighting a poor one always loses. Militarily, victory seems elusive. Instead of uniting the Arabian Peninsula, the house of Saud is now grappling with severe disagreements within itself and a tarnished image internationally.

Saudi Arabia’s best bet at surviving war on terror-produced instability around itself was to function as the Islamic equivalent of the Vatican and promote a policy dedicated to peace and unity among Muslims, denouncing strife as contrary to the message of Islam. Such a position, coupled with custodianship of the holiest sites in the Muslim world, would have equipped the Saudi monarchy with endless soft power against any regime change attempt.

The Saudi-Yemen war is creating the narrative of sectarian divide at a time when the Islamic civilisation is reaching unprecedented consensus on several issues. An acceptance of the Islamic banking system, establishment of a Middle Eastern version of Interpol to combat the common scourge of terrorism, collaboration in medicine to produce halal vaccines, enhancement in trade ties and increased cooperation in disaster management are all evolving future systems in the Islamic world.
The war in Yemen has given the western corporate press an opportunity to create the divide hype while dumping the blame on Saudi Arabia for starting it. Polemics on either side notwithstanding, Iran is not at war with Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Saudi Arabia is at war in Yemen with an incredibly young, rebellious force and numerous independent committees ruling over neighbourhoods in a fragmenting country. The war does not carry the support of the public in Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
Pakistan must fathom the far-reaching implications of the Saudi-Yemen war for the Islamic world in particular and Asian economies in general. The blowback from Yemen is threatening the Saudi status quo. The overthrow of the status quo in the Middle East replaces unpopular order with violent chaos due to the international strategic environment. Were Iran’s revolution of 1979 to take place within the current environment, it would not succeed. It was the balance of terror between the super powers that made the 1979 Iranian revolution escape foreign intervention.

Saudi Arabian stability has dual implications for international relations. One is due to the Saudi power of swing energy production. Whoever controls Saudi oil can influence international energy markets and shape international energy relations. The second implication is regional and accrues from Saudi service of the holiest of shrines in the Islamic world. If the House of Saud falls due to blow back from the Yemen war, it would only be amidst terrible instability inside Saudi Arabia. Should such a scenario evolve, the west would get an opportunity to police Saudi oil fields to save them from falling into the hands of Islamic State (IS). The US is the only power that is entrenched enough in the region with intelligence and military apparatus to play such a role.
Pakistan too will suffer the fallout of such a situation. Imagine a future with multilateral western sanctions against China with the US in control of Arab oil. Pakistan should consider the implications of such an outcome for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Islamabad has yet to show a plan that takes into account the full implications of the crisis. A tripartite Pakistani role is not likely to yield results. Pakistan can increase its stature by steering in the only direction that will resolve the issue with no further damage to either side in this unfortunate war.
Pakistan should call for an emergency summit meeting of all Islamic heads of states with one focus agenda: the end to the Saudi-Yemen war. Otherwise, this crisis is likely to end up in the UNSC where non-regional powers will seek — and get — authorisation to intervene.
The writer can be reached at zeenia.satti@post.harvard.edu

Longer Version of Implications of the Saudi Yemen War

The Houthi rebels who want an end to Saudi monarchy and death to its western “patron” the US seem to miss the fact that the Saudi US relationship has ceased to be that of patron-client since 2014.  Saudi Arabia and United States are engaged in an adversarial relationship in the energy sector. Washington’s effort at making itself energy independent through shale gas revolution is frustrated by the House of Saud’s decision to glut the market with cheap conventional oil. The Saudi move has ended what used to be frenzied investment in shale gas industry in the US, with negative multiplier effect on US economy.

Saudi Arabia felt more threatened by shale gas then it did by the 1979 revolution in Iran, Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and the 2012 Arab uprising combined. The success of Shale gas would not only make the US energy independent, it would also make it a major exporter of energy. Spread of shale gas technology would radically alter the international market for the Arab energy producing giants. Furthermore, at a time the US is perceived as a threat to the status quo in the Arab world, shale gas export could give the sagging US economy a shot in the arm, which in turn would support American long war in the Middle East. The Gulf kingdoms no longer rely on Washington for their security, though such divergence has not been pronounced openly.

Hitherto, Saudi swing production has been used to the advantage of the US to bring common enemies down such as Iraq during sanctions against Saddam after he annexed Kuwait, sanctions against Iran post latter’s nuclear bid, and sanctions against Russia after the Crimean annexation in 2014. (Moscow and Riyadh stand on opposite sides in Syria).  During all these crises, an increase in Saudi production made up for the loss of oil from the sanctioned suppliers, enabling the energy markets to remain stable and sanctions to stick.

The last two years have been the only time in history that Saudi swing production has harmed the US. Initially, the Americans welcomed it because the falling oil prices were hurting Russia’s Putin. Riyadh’s visit to Moscow in 2015 and a formal apology for the role Saudi Arabia played in US’ rivalry with Russia crystallized the parting of ways between the US and  Saudi Arabia.

Saudi refusal to lower  supply to  raise the price of oil is harming the US economy across board, not just in the shale sector. In the US, plant after plant is shutting down in the shale sector due to decline in investment. Despite that,  the US started the export of shale in January 2016 just to lower the price of oil further at a time Saudi Arabia needs to increase its revenue to fund the Yemen war. The timing of removal of Iran sanctions is also targeted against Saudi Arabia in particular and the Gulf kingdoms in general. Addition of supply from Iran at time like this will further lower the price of oil. Iran is not likely to make much revenue either with the price of oil being so low.

The US is simultaneously deepening the ditch for the Saudi monarchy in Yemen  in the hope the war would bring Shah Salman down by creating rifts within the ruling family on the one hand and deepening domestic opposition to Al Saud  on the other.  Western media is working 24/7 on isolating Shah Salman’s government internationally through increasing accusation of war crimes committed by Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

US’ support to Saudi Arabia over Yemen is only the face of US policy. In reality, the US has created a Catch 22 for the House of Saud in Yemen by manipulating the domestic rifts within Yemen to empower the Houthis. The most likely origin of arms into Yemen is not Iran but Israel. The Saudis have traditionally bank rolled anti  Israel diplomatic and military activity. Hence Tel Aviv has an interest in seeing Saudi Arabian power fragmented.

Saudi rationale for fighting in Yemen is similar to West’s rationale for entering Afghanistan. In October 2001, a very poor country was attacked by a coalition of rich countries because the former threatened domestic peace in the latter.  There are two crucial differences that lie at the heart of rising international criticism of  Saudi action in Yemen. One, the Saudi led war in Yemen is not sanctioned by the Security Council; Two, Gulf countries have no influence over the global corporate media. Ownership of international media lies with Western corporations sympathetic to  Israel. Hence the Saudi  perspective is missing from international coverage of  the Saudi Yemen war.

Yemen has been at war with itself for fifty years. Why should Saudi Arabia involve itself militarily in Yemen now? The answer to this question lies in the jittery nerves the Peninsula Kingdoms have acquired after the Arab uprising of 2012 and during the rapidly spreading instability due to West’s WOT in the region. The sudden empowerment of the Houthis and their threatening speeches against Saudi Arabia created a security dilemma for the latter.  If the Saudi king let things be, he would have instability on his southern border. Oman does not see eye to eye with Riyadh on many issues; Iraq is fragmenting and a radical regime in Iran is filling the strategic void created in the region by US’ destruction of Iraq. Yemen falling to forces hostile to Riyadh would add to instability in Saudi Arabia’s near abroad.

Yet another fact the Houthis of Yemen  seem to be overlooking when threatening to dislodge the Al Saud is that it was the Saudi monarchy that initiated the diplomatic overture in 2014 to unite the Arabian Peninsula as one economic or possibly political unit.  Oman was the only country with reservations about Shah Salman’s proposal.  Had Saudi Arabia succeeded in uniting the Peninsula Arabs as one, the power sharing  would have meant the dissolution of the Al Saud monarchy or the periodic circulation of power between different royal families. Therefore, the Saudi monarchy was volunteering to abdicate in favour of Arab political and/or economic unity. Such a move would have united the largest oil and gas resources in the world into one administrative unit, enhancing the political and financial power of the Arabian Peninsula. Yemen would be a likely beneficiary of such a development. The timing of Houthi opposition to Saudi monarchy is therefore counterproductive.

Saudi effort at uniting the Peninsula Arabs may have triggered the allegation in the US corporate press that Shah Salman suffers from dementia. The claim against a significant monarch is without any evidence. Earlier, during the last days of King Abdullah’s reign, Western voices  started vilifying the decision making apparatus in Riyadh as aged and worn out. When Shah Salman appointed his thirty five year old son as defense Minister and deputy Crown Prince, (his age reflects the the age of majority Saudis) the latter’s age was reported as twenty nine in the Western press and he was censured for lacking experience.  Simultaneously, the Houthi rebels got significantly more power than ever before and drove a Saudi allied ruler out of Yemen with negative posturing towards Riyadh itself.

The Saudis had to do something about the situation.  Unfortunately, they chose what their detractors wanted – declaration of war against Yemen.

The Saudis are losing the war on the moral front, where a rich country fighting a poor one always loses. Instead of uniting the Arabian Peninsula, the house of Saud is now grappling with severe disagreements within itself and a tarnished image internationally.

Saudi Arabia’s best bet at surviving the War on Terror produced instability around itself  was to function as the Islamic equivalent of the “Vatican,” and  promote a policy dedicated to peace and unity among  Muslims everywhere, denouncing strife between Muslims as contrary to the message of Islam. Such a position, coupled with custodianship of Islam’s holiest shrines, would equip the Saudi  monarchy with moral armor against  external and internal threats.

THE SECTARIAN DIVIDE ASPECT OF THE YEMEN SAUDI WAR

The Saudi led expedition in Yemen is being used in the western media to push the Islamic world towards sectarian divide. Ironically, the “divide hype” has come at a time the Islamic civilization is edging towards consensus on major issues.  An acceptance of the Islamic banking system as an alternative to the western financial system is an example. The need for establishing a Middle Eastern version of Interpol to combat the common scourge of terrorism is being considered. Collaboration in science, technology, (for example producing halal immunization vaccines) education, enhancement in trade ties and increased cooperation in disaster management are evolving future systems within the Islamic world.

The media has now created the narrative of Shia Sunni divide due to the heating up of Saudi Arabian/ Irani rivalry in Yemen.

Though Iran and Saudi Arabia fall on different sides of the divide such as Shia/Sunni, Arab/Persian, and traditionally, pro US/anti US,  the Gulf Arabs  have lately taken a more assertive role in dealing with the US. Their refusal to be part of the anti Iran coalition George W Bush tried to build in 2006 is a case in point. After months of activity on this front, Washington managed to bring together the members of GCC plus Egypt and Jordon (read Sunni states) in a meeting whose declaration was described by the Washington Post as” a vague piece of paper that did not name Iran (or Syria, Hizbollah, or Hamas) but proclaimed the participants’ common commitment to “regional security and peace.”  In other words, the divide diplomacy failed because the Gulf Arabs wanted no part of it.

The war in Yemen is giving the West an opportunity to propagate the divide narrative while dumping the blame on Saudi Arabia for initiating it.

The Saudi Yemen war must be ended as soon as possible. Pakistan has taken up the mediator role and has asked  both Iran and Saudi Arabia to appoint a focal person for further tripartite diplomatic engagement. Polemics on either side notwithstanding, Iran is not at war with Saudi Arabia in Yemen.  Saudi Arabia is at war in Yemen with an incredibly young rebellious force and numerous independent committees ruling over neighbourhoods in a fragmenting country. The war does not carry the support of public in Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

IS PAKISTAN TAKING STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AS MEDIATOR IN SAUDI YEMEN WAR?

The decline in US’s hegemony in international affairs has created a greater strategic space for regional actors to play a role in regional crises. The activity we see is without a region wide plan though many problems are of common nature. The role that Pakistan has been trying to play in the Saudi Yemen war falls in the category of such activity.

Pakistan’s leadership has not been able to fathom the depth of the problem of Saudi Yemen war and its far reaching implications for the Islamic world in particular and the Asian economies in general.

The blow back from Yemen is threatening Saudi status quo. Where ever the status quo has fallen in the Middle East during WOT, it is replaced by chaos and instability. The lesson from recent history is that political progress is best achieved as a gradual effort in a peaceful environment through support at the top.

Hence over throw of the status quo in the Middle East through uprisings, civil wars or other engineered or real crises is likely to replace unacceptable order with violent chaos. The latter is likely to lead to the reestablishment of “mandates” through which the Middle East was governed by the powers that be during the interwar period because the  Middle Eastern energy product  has vital significance for industrial  economies.

Saudi Arabian stability has dual implications for stability in international relations. One is due to Saudi power of swing energy production. Whoever controls Saudi oil can influence international energy markets and shape international energy relations. The second implication is regional. Saudi  Arabia administers the holiest of shrines in the Islamic world.  Muslims in all Islamic countries and Muslim minorities in non Islamic countries venerate the shrines of Mecca and Medina with deep spiritual devotion.  The shrines are the structural embodiment of the heart of Islam. The annual ritual of Haj at Mecca is one of the core practices in Islam.

Non Muslims can not set foot in the holy land.

The House of Saud has serviced the shrines and administered the annual Haj which draws Muslims from all over the world into Saudi Arabia, creating the largest recurrent mass gathering in the world. Should Saudi Arabia deteriorate into a civil war akin to Libya or Syria, leading to international intervention, the existence of the holiest of sites in Islam makes non Muslim incursion into Saudi territory a no brainer unless Harmain Sharif is separated from Saudi Arabia and handed over to another Islamic entity for service.

Why do I think such a scenario could evolve if the Yemen war continues to destabilize Saudi Arabia. Well, USA and Western Europe will welcome an opportunity to destabilize the Gulf monarchies so they can police the area themselves to take the power of swing energy production under their control.

The  War on Terror is a renewable resource for the West and deployed in pursuit of containment of regionalism in trade. ( Daesh has  now replaced Al Qaeda). BRICs and the rise of the South has created new trade routes and regional trade ties bypassing the US and Western Europe. One look at the new economic map of the world, the emergence of new economic powerhouses and the significance of new trade routes makes this point amply clear.

If the US, suffering as it is from a decline in competitive industry,  allows the newly shaping economic relations to bypass itself,  within half a century the US would be left with not even tourism to market to the rest of the world. Centuries old historical structures that international tourists love to explore do not exist in sufficient quantity in the US for the latter to be a popular tourist destination.  The landscape, though beautiful, lacks cultural uniqueness of the kind Bhutan has for instance, making the US less competitive even in Eco tourism.The old American civilizations of the Mayas and Incas and their structural and cultural memories were erased  by the European conquistador. Instead, an entirely new civilization was structured by a people whose history lies in Europe.

The US thus has compelling reasons to do everything within its power to control the bloodline to newly emergent economies. i.e., Energy supply from the Middle East.

Shale energy is unsustainable. Its environmental blow back is greater than that of conventional fuels. The West’s reliance on Shale as an interim to renewable is counterproductive because investment in shale has led to neglect of R&D in renewables.

Then why is the West promoting Shale?

The Peninsula Arabs realize the implications of state sponsored Shale promotion during WOT, which has created terror groups all over the region who are a menace to their respective states. The fires ignited by WOT surround the oil producing Arabian monarchies who are as yet stable icons of prosperity, law and order.  Their ability to survive in a volatile environment depends on the enhancement of domestic services to pacify their population should it get restive. The greater the revenue, the better their ability to manage domestic grievances.

Shale energy creates a new competitor in market that decreases the revenue generating power of the Arab product. Shale LNG is far cheaper to transport than conventional fossil fuels. Shale is cheaper to extract also. (Interestingly, Russia and Norway have a common interest with the Arabs in making Shale fail. Intra West schism over the issue is writing on the wall). For now, the Arabs are doing what they can to keep promoting world’s reliance on their product while simultaneously emaciating the economy of a superpower whose activities they now perceive as a threat to their survival.

Against this background, if the House of Saud falls due to blow back from the Yemen war, it would only be amidst terrible instability inside Saudi Arabia. Should such a scenario evolve, the West would get an opportunity to police the oil fields to save them from falling into the hands of Daaesh. The US is the only power that is entrenched in the region with intelligence and military apparatus to play such a role.

(Incidentally, if the control over swing production moves into the hands of the west, it could have devastating implications for Asian economies such as that of India, China and to lesser extent Pakistan, not to mention Russia.  It would be interesting to see how the US maneuvers itself in such a scenario vis-à-vis the aforesaid big powers).

Like stated before, western incursion would be possible only if the territory occupying the holiest of shrines in Islam is separated from Saudi Arabia and given to some other Muslim entity for upkeep.If so, the management of Haj and Umra could fall into inexperienced hands.

I watched with great apprehension the narrative of the terror attack in California by the couple called Farook who met during Haj in Saudi Arabia. The connotation that Haj is an event where Middle Eastern terrorists can meet up with West’s Muslim citizens and instigate them to commit acts of terrorism in Western countries has ominous implications.

It would be more than an assault on the religious pride of the Muslims if their holiest of rituals is subjected to (nausbillah) political derogation. If the administration of Khaana Kaaba moves into inexperienced hands with episodes of recurrent mismanagement or violence, it would have negative cognitive impact on Muslims everywhere, demoralizing them as a civilization at best and militarizing them against each other or the West at worst.

For Pakistan, the implications of a break down in Saudi Arabian status quo are enormous. Pakistan will suffer the above mentioned political, economic, and cultural fall out of such a situation in no small measure.

Pakistan is acting way too slow. Islamabad has yet to show a plan that takes into account the full implications of the crisis.

Cognizant of the interplay of international forces in this war, Pakistan is understandably reluctant to play a kinetic role. Pakistan is, however, uniquely suited to play a diplomatic role, though it should not be a tripartite kind. Feeble and facetious diplomatic effort will only decrease Pakistan’s regional standing. On the other hand, Pakistan can increase its stature by carrying out diplomatic activity in the only direction that will resolve the issue with no further damage to either side in this unfortunate war.

Pakistan should call for an emergency summit meeting of all Islamic heads of states with one focus agenda – The end to Saudi Yemen war.

The upcoming OIC conference, scheduled to take place in Turkey in April, would not serve the purpose. Erdogan has made Istanbul partisan by taking a pro Saudi and anti Iran stance on the issue at the outset.  Pakistan has remained candid despite some brow beating attempt by UAE and Pakistan’s ruling family Nawaz Sharif’s indebtedness to Riyadh due to the security the latter provided Sharif during his exile from Pakistan. Islamabad’s sagacity in the matter affords it the opportunity to repeat history when Pakistan hosted the Summit of Islamic heads of states in 1973 in the historic city of Lahore, Pakistan.

Granted, Pakistan’s security environment is not the same as it was in 1973. A safer venue can be chosen for an emergency summit meeting dedicated to providing the Gulf Arabs with face saving exit from the war and the Yemeni rebels with an arrangement that pacifies Yemen.

Tens of thousands of dead bodies later, as the wounds of the war of 1971 were yet fresh, the 1973 Islamic summit succeeded in show casing Pakistani premier Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and the head of the newly created Bangladesh, Mujib ur Rehman, together in an embrace, followed by Pakistan’s recognition of Bangladesh . There is dire need to  push for similar rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Yemeni rebels. Only and only the collective force of an emergency summit meeting of all Islamic heads of states can put a swift and enduring end to this badly timed war in the Middle East.

The alternative has negative implications not just for the Peninsula Arabs but also for Afro-Asian states, both big and small.

Imagine multilateral western sanctions against China with the US in control of Arab oil? Pakistan should consider the implications of such an outcome for the China-Pak economic corridor Pakistan is building with enormous hopes!

The Muslims better act before the Security Council does. This crisis is deteriorating fast and likely to end up in the UNSC where non regional powers will seek – and get – authorization to intervene.

The writer can be reached at zeenia.satti@post.harvard.edu.