|
Llewellyn
King
Read Llewellyn's bio and previous columns
May 21, 2009
British Socialist
Idealism and Pakistan's Road to Ruin
You can blame the mess that is Pakistan on an excess of liberal idealism
in London after World War II. When the Labour Party under Clement Atlee
trounced Winston Churchill's Conservatives, it came into power with an
agenda of idealistic socialism that was to have consequences down
through the decades.
At
home this socialist administration planned for national insurance in
health and pensions, which Churchill supported, and for an almost
immediate British withdrawal from India, which he vehemently opposed.
India was already far along toward some kind of independence by the
outbreak of World War II. The manner of Britain's going was more the
issue than that it would happen. The speed and the nature of the
withdrawal is debated to this day, as is the rough partition of British
India into India and West and East Pakistan, now Bangladesh.
In
the end the withdrawal was swift and ill-thought-out, and led to
enormous loss of life – an immediate slaughter of more than one million
people in religious violence. If you add the deaths in the 1965 and 1971
wars, the toll rises by more millions, especially when you count in the
endless violence over the disputed territory of Kashmir.
There were many weaknesses in the British withdrawal, including the
absurd idea of two Pakistans separated by India. Pakistan was an idea
supported by Muslim leaders going back to the 19th Century,
but the creation of a modern country based solely on religion had yet to
be tested.
Where the socialist idealists in Britain failed was in realizing that
the industrial and entrepreneurial heart of British India (The Raj) lay
not in the poor Muslim areas but in the more sophisticated cities of
India, with its diversity of languages and religions, even though
Hinduism dominated.
What is now Pakistan was poor, feudal, corrupt and torn between the two
sects of Islam, Sunni and Shia.
Pakistan might have been left to stew, if it had not been for
the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, coupled with the Indian championing
of regimes hostile to the United States. Through this support of the
unaligned movement (a bunch of troublemakers like Cuba and Tanzania),
India thought it could play the United States against the Soviet Union.
All it did was to accelerate the U.S. tilt to its unstable neighbor,
Pakistan.
The Soviet incursion into Afghanistan lured the United States deeply
into the region. Pakistan became our ally and we willfully overlooked
its feudalism and corruption and, most importantly, the spread of a
potent Islamic militancy, through its madrassas or religious schools. We
heavily favored Pakistan, even though we knew the country was trying to
build a bomb.
In
the mid-1980s, I interviewed Gen. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, Pakistan's strong
man. He denied Pakistan was working on a weapon, but his own detailed
knowledge of bomb construction gave the lie to his protestations. I left
Pakistan convinced that a nuclear weapon was in the works. What one did
not know was the willingness of the rogue scientist, A.Q. Khan, to sell
the technology to all comers, like North Korea and Iran.
This week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came to the White House
briefing room to announce that the United States was committing $100
million to refugee aid in Pakistan, on top of the $60 million already
committed. She also asked people to use their cell phones to dial more
dollars for refugees.
There is irony here. It was American food aid that supported Afghan
refugees and their Pakistani supporters from the tribal areas during the
Soviet war in Afghanistan. I stood outside Peshawar and watched convoys
of trucks with sacks of American grain heading to the refugee camps
where the Taliban was incubating. When I went to those camps,
beneficiaries of our food complained that it was not accompanied by
enough cooking oil. American policy and food have nurtured the Taliban.
While India's economy strengthens and the country celebrates 60 years of
democracy, Pakistan is in chaos fed by the ancient evils of religion and
corruption.
In
a further irony, Britain's ill-planned withdrawal from India in a frenzy
of liberal idealism had no effect in Britain, beyond opening the door to
floods of poor immigrants from Pakistan, immigrants who have vastly
complicated Britain's response to terrorism.
© 2009 North Star
Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback
about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
it.
This
is Column # LK096.
Request permission to publish here. |
