The present political turmoil in Pakistan reminds me of similar situations in 1968 and 1977 when countrywide agitations had gripped the country. Political polarization had reached such a level that the army had to intervene to restore law and order and slap martial law. In both cases, the involvement of foreign powers to destabilize Pakistan was alleged. Joseph Farland, the US ambassador to Pakistan in 1968, was accused of fomenting internal trouble that led to the ouster of President Ayub Khan.
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, during the Pakistan National Alliance (PNA)- led- agitation against the PPP government in 1977, had talked about an enigmatic elephant ( Election symbol of the US Democratic Party) that was responsible for toppling his government. More than four decades later, the sitting government in Pakistan is again blaming a foreign hand behind the present chaos.
Read more: Analyzing India’s failed nuclear security
The smoking gun this time also points towards the US
After WW II, Britain and the United States had wanted a united India to counter the Soviet Union –the nascent superpower. They accepted partition reluctantly as the law and order situation in the Subcontinent was gradually getting out of Britain’s control. After the partition of the Subcontinent, for a brief period, the United States still hoped that India and Nationalist China would form the Asian pivot of America’s global reach (China was governed by the nationalists till 1949 when toppled by the communists).
However, only when China was “lost to the Free World” – and it became clear that India under Nehru was intent upon its empire-building under the concept of non-alignment, was Pakistan brought into the matrix of American security and offered military and economic assistance. The 1962 Sino- Indian War provided the United States an opportunity to increase American influence over India without coercing the latter into a formal and declared pact. This, to some extent, also explains America’s indifferent stance towards Pakistan during the 65 and 71wars.
Read more: India’s missile debacle raises serious questions!
What is borrowed power?
National power is the aggregate of a country’s GNP, Military Power, and Ranking in Science and Technology. Weak states borrow power from strong states to achieve their national goals. Theoretically, if a strong rival’s aggregate national power is ‘x’, and the weaker neighbor’s aggregate national power is ‘y’, then their power differential will be ‘x-y’. This will be the quantum of the additional power required by the weaker country to maintain the balance of power with its hostile neighbor (India, in case of India-Pakistan rivalry). This borrowed power will come from a third country if that country is willing to lend it to the weaker country.
Manipulation of borrowed power by a weak power, for the resolution of its dispute(s) with a stronger and hostile neighbor, can be likened to the “gravity assist maneuver” which, in orbital mechanics and aerospace engineering, is the use of relative movement and gravity of a planet, or any other heavenly object, to accelerate a spacecraft for saving propellant, time, and expense.
During the Cold War period, Pakistan borrowed power from the United States to seek parity with India, while India borrowed power from the Soviet Union (and also the United States) to seek parity with China. Pakistan sold its sovereignty cheap whereas the Indian leadership displayed better marketing skills through the deceptive marketing tool of non-alignment.
Pakistan’s membership of the American-sponsored military pacts is well known. That India was also aligned during the Cold War period is generally ignored. During the 1962 Sino-Indian War Nehru requested the United States to bomb China (Galbraith, 1969). China’s unilateral ceasefire was not an act of magnanimity. It feared direct American intervention in the Sino-Indian conflict. Again, the United States was not supporting India because of any moral reason.
Read more: What role a ‘deep state’ plays in politics?
Borrowed power is not a free lunch
The weaker state has to pay a price for borrowing power from a powerful state. It was another matter to seek foreign assistance as a tactical measure to address Pakistan’s problems.
However, successive Pakistani leaders, both civilian and military, showed a great inclination towards the concept of borrowed power as a strategic instrument. Today’s Pakistan, despite slogging through the minefield of history for more than seven decades, is in much better shape than it was at the dawn of its independence. However, the propensity of its leaders to lean on outsiders does not show any sign of slackening.
What price does Pakistan have to pay?
During the US occupation of Afghanistan, America had made its future aid to Pakistan contingent upon the following conditions:-
- Whereas the TTP safe havens in Afghanistan, according to the US, were nothing but delusions, Pakistan had to stop supporting the Haqqani Group- an allegation Pakistan vehemently rejected. However, Pakistan had no other option than to follow the US commandments.
- Pakistan’s concerns about India are its “Strategic Anxieties”; it should accept India as a major regional player in South Asia.
- Pakistan should stop talking about maintaining a military balance with India. Military balance is a concept coined by the Prussian General Staff under the influence of Karl von Clausewitz.
Read more: Order of Battle in the War of Nerves
Under such conditions, it is clear that the US wants to reduce Pakistan to the status of Finland versus the erstwhile Soviet Union. This is to propel India as America’s regional satrap. The present internal turmoil in Pakistan should be viewed in this context.
Saleem Akhtar Malik is a Pakistan Army veteran who writes on national and international affairs, defense, military history, and military technology. He Tweets at @saleemakhtar53. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Global Village Space.