The millat of Pakistan on closing initial 50 years of its life is preparing to enter the future with a fresh determination. Muslims are ready to renew the pledge they had made with Allah and the masses 50 years before. The pledge was to present a prototype of individual and collective life which is in accordance with the set course of Allah and His Prophet (pbuh). It was vowed that a state shall be formed where submission to the Lord Almighty, mutual sincerity and affection, peace and harmony, acknowledgement of rights, equity and justice for all and pious living would prevail. And from where Muslims can, bearing testimony to the truth, rise once again as emissaries of a new life-giving system for the suffering humanity. Once enriched with the gift of freedom, the nation and its leadership ignored their oath and hence started suffering continuously. But, despite all the shortcomings and misfortunes, the original concept still gives direction to masses’ determination. The one way open to safe future journey is to learn from the mistakes of the past by sincerely implementing accountability.

Security Risks

Nations, in which accountability prevails, rapidly rectify mistakes, remove wrongdoers from the position of authority and entrust power to objective-conscious people. We believe accountability - soul of democratic process - to become a means of arresting deterioration thereby flourishing goodness. Open discussion on matters of national significance, exposing wrong policies and facilitating way to draft concrete future strategies are the basics of democracy. In this regard, national security is one big question mark faced by the people now a days. A dialogue on this issue is must because of the following three reasons:

First, safeguarding freedom, independence and political sovereignty is the prime requirement for practical implementation of ideology. If a nation’s liberty is in danger, it loses choice to organize its life in accordance with its faith. National destiny is thus shifted to others and the people become slaves to other’s wishes thereby losing possibility of any future development.

Second, it seems that according to a well thought-out plan efforts are on to curtail importance of defence. These efforts are done under the guise of regional friendship, economic development and social welfare. A new term, "Human Security" has been coined for the purpose and an aggressive movement launched to reduce defence outlays. Many a grand Socratic brains posing as peace-pigeons had intentionally closed eyes to real threats. Ignoring the consequences and hard facts, they are busy in extrinsic lobbying to clip the falcon’s feathers. The voices of those who had been the defenders of the country's boundaries and space are echoing in this cacophony. Those entrusted with the highest offices, such as the air chief, chief of staff and corps commanders, are spewing-out cynical proposals which target the already bleeding nation. The collective hew and cry of the present military command and the political leadership has created an essential difference which can on no account be ignored. It seems imminent that the problem should be brought to forefront to be talked/ in the national forum, ultimately to make the required decisions.

Third, the world opinion, comprising essentially of USA, World Bank and IMF, openly attack our defence budget. In the name of so-called political friendship, financial co-operation, foreign investment, internationalism and denationalization of assets, they want to cash in reduction of our defence spending. Also, in name of friendly neighborhood, they want us to accept Indian hegemony in South Asia.

In light of these facts, a strategy should be chalked-out that encompasses all the national exigencies and which is in line with the objectives of freedom and the Ummah’s ideological, political and economic requirements.

Defence Parameters

Before proceeding further, it is necessary to explain three basic points:

First, the stress on importance, strength and stability of defence does not in any way connote its involvement in politics. We explicitly want to drive home view that the first and the last duty of armed forces is to defend geographic boundaries of the country and to perform duties abiding by the national Constitution. Whatever may the reasons of the army’s past involvement in politics be, it was ethically wrong and produced disastrous consequences. Without going into details of the past, it is stated that we do not voice any support for any political involvement of the armed forces. Even from viewpoint of defence itself, it is wrong and harmful. Whenever we talk of strengthening defence it always imply that the forces should obey the Constitution under which they have taken oath and among them those who negate should meet due punishment.

The second basic point is that the strength of defence is not simply the management of certain temporary events. It is most urgent that in view of ever-changing world politics, technical developments and regional circumstances, the perils encountering ideology of the country and Ummah, the department of defence may be routinely studied and brought at par with other nations of the globe.

The third point is that there is no justification in treating defence as holy cow - one above all evils. In light of Muslim history and traditions, defence affairs are also to be confined within limits. Defence affairs must also be processed and sieved, its working should be - with little restraint - talked in parliament and its performance should be checked by process of accountability as done in other affairs. No one is or should be above accountability before the parliament and the nation. The account, evaluation and policy-trends should be aligned with the Islamic laws and democratic traditions.

Appeasement Thesis

The Nazi German minister for information and ‘dis-information’, General Goeble, had said: "if one keeps announcing and hammering in a wrong information, people ultimately take it for truth." Nowadays, Pakistan is facing just such an information problem. The tune is ‘defence eating up all national resources.’ Protagonists put forward that due to this single factor our economic development has come to a standstill and welfare projects for the general public have been frozen. It is being advocated that with price of one F-16 plane, so many schools and hospitals can be constructed. And instead of a tank, so many villages can get drinking water.

The Indian lobby had been voicing such concerns since the very beginning, but now the World Bank and the IMF are the added lovers of human development. The enthralling chorus has been joined in by champions of human rights commissions to ex-chiefs of the air force and the army. To top all, the Prime Minister, in his Golden Jubilee speech, said:

"The war on the Kashmir, policy of confrontation, and the rat race for acquiring weapons have not only eaten up thousands of men, but also billions of dollars worth of resources have been wasted in hostilities and both Bharat and Pakistan have endured losses."

(Daily Jang, London, August 15, 1997)

Thanks to our most-mandated Prime Minister, who however added that: "Peace and stability cannot be achieved without the solution of the Kashmir problem and we are not unconscious of our defence." But what about such comments by one retired chief of Pakistan Air Force, one ex-corps commander and present Governor, who confirmed these remarks in an open assemblage. He said that: "There is no danger of war between Pakistan and India. There is not even 20% chance of it and we should treat India as our neighbour. Kashmir is not our jugular vein. India is a very great power and Pakistan Army cannot free Kashmir and we should adopt a policy of systematically reducing our forces." And according to"His Excellency" the Governor, we should also learn the etiquette of living with a bowed head like Nepal and Bhutan. Another retired chief of Army Staff (General Gul Hasan) has went a step further while giving an interview to the Press Trust of India, playing a tune which completely wipes out the Two Nations Theory. His remarks are like erasing the whole history of the sub-continent. He also has an objection that: "How can the trend later be changed, when, from the outset, the new generation is presented with India as a foe. (Daily The News International, London, June 27, 1997)

These people opine that in today's world, no big country can aggress against a small country, so the real issue is the raising standard of living which is key to all problems, even the problem of Kashmir, in their view, can be solved this way. To preach this philosophy of surrender and appeasement, Pakistan’s ex-minister of finance and advisor to the World Bank, Dr. Mahoobul Haq has also entered the arena. Besides articles and lectures, his research report "Human Development in Southeast Asia, 1997" has condemned the defence spendings. The interesting point to note in his report is highlighting of controversial issues which hinder peace, including: Farrakha Barrage, (India -Bangladesh) and Wullar Barrage (Pakistan - India), but surprisingly no mention of the basic issue of Kashmir.

With great distress, we have to say that game is being played to get rid of the Kashmir issue and to weaken defence of Pakistan. This needs a timely check. The worst part of this plot is that all these social scientists who are today giving lectures on "Human Security versus National Security," are the persons who were, for the last forty years, the designers of Pakistan's financial and economic policies. They are the ones whose hands had crafted policies which made the country suffer today. If economic development were the solution to all ills then why America and Europe face disputes today. Is Ireland not a financially sound country? Then why is there a century old rebellion going on? Do not the developed nations fight each other? Was Central Europe economically underdeveloped, that Bosnia, Kosovo, Sanjik, Albania and Macedonia are the cradle of turmoil? What about Cyprus? What kind of economic development is the basic cause of the conflict between Chechnia and Russia? According to the economic comparison of India and Pakistan given in "Human Development in Southeast Asia, 1997" the per capita income in Pakistan is US$430, and that of India is US$300. That means it is 33% less than that of Pakistan. But which of our problems has been solved or would be solved by adding a few more dollars to per capita GNP?

These gentlemen shriek day in and day out about defence spending without mentioning the budget item most depleting our meager resources, i.e., the debt-servicing. Infact, these people are the pioneers and protagonists of interest-oriented and interest-dependent development strategies which destroyed the whole fabric of our economy. Regarding the 1997-98 budget, in which the estimated spending is Rs.558 billions, total defence expenditures is Rs.134. billions which, compared to the last year (1996-97) budget of Rs.131 and revised budget of Rs.127 billion, is only Rs.3 billion and Rs.7. billion more. And if 13% inflation is also included , then, it will be equal to only Rs.116.5 billion in real terms. That means it will be 12.5% less than the last year's original budget and from the revised budget less by 9%. Against this, payment on interest and repayment of debt, which in 1996-97 was Rs. 198.5 billion, has raised now to Rs. 248 billion for the current fiscal year, or about 25% more than the last year. In this way 44.9 % of this year's budget will be eaten up by interest and loans, whereas defence allocation has been reduced from 26% to nearly 24.2% of the budget.

Despite delightful slogan of "Qarz Utaro, Mulk Sanwaro," the burden of the national debt is increasing. During Meraj Khalid's interim government a loan of Rs. 1.2 billion was drawn at the maddening interest rate of 22% and the present regime is giving the good news of another loan of Rs. 1.6 billion. In fact, this is that malignant tumor, which does not allow the vision of human prosperity and economic well-being. But the equivocal servants of the foreign aid agencies, the so-called intellectuals, have no thought of these cuscutic creepers, who have made defence the target.

The Reality

Another burden on the economy is the intriguing corruption. This is gulping out one-fourth of the national wealth annually. Estimatedly Rs.400 billion to Rs.500 billion were lost to the country every year. If one third of this was stopped, all the deficit in the budget might be cleared by now. But accountability has been totally falsified. The class which was looting the country is lamenting on the defence spending and does not care to close the funnels through which the national wealth is sucked to make rich more richer and cause general deprivation.

What they are talking about Kashmir and the previous wars with India has no relation to the facts. Albeit, this helps in removing the mask from their faces and helps in knowing their real objects. He who negates the fact that Kashmir is the jugular vein of Pakistan, is not only throwing dust in the eyes of the Quaid-e-Azam but is also denying the undeniable geographical, historical, political, economical and strategical realities. Don’t those rivers in Pakistan we depend upon for our economy originate in Kashmir? Don’t Kashmir have natural proximity with Pakistan? Are not the Pakistanis and the Kashmiris one nation belonging to one race, one religion and one civilization? Have the people of Kashmir accepted even for one day the pirate-like occupation by India? Are their ambitions and wishes different from the Pakistani brethren? Do their watches tally with India instead of Pakistan and has the agenda of uncompleted partition been changed? Has the illegal seizure and dominance inspite of Kashmiri's struggle for independence been acknowledged? The fact is that there is no difference between Pakistan and Kashmir , and the decisive war for the future of Pakistan is being fought there. Those who try to weaken it or want to get rid of it will not be unfaithful to Kashmir but to Pakistan. A slight reduction in the defence capabilities will be disastrous both to Kashmir and Pakistan and this is the trap which is even more dangerous than open aggression of the enemy.

In the zeal for friendship with India and arms reduction, the benevolent friends are closing their eyes to the national pride and the historical facts. One of our ex-Chief of the Air Force has gone so far, as to say that both the previous wars were unnecessary: That they were started by Pakistan and had very bitter results. This is, in spite of neutral historians, as well as India’s relatively free researchers who have acknowledged that both in 1965 and 1971 India aggressed. This is an undeniable fact that in 1965 India started the war and was humiliated in Rann katch. Later the Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri announced that now India will select its own timings and shall open a new front of its own choice. Then on September 6, without formal declaration, India attacked on the Lahore front. On September 8, it attacked in the Sialkot sector. Kashmir being a disputed territory, the commando action there cannot be justified for aggression. As far as the matter of 1971, it is so clear that even the Indian apologists could not deny the fact of Indian aggression. This "honor" is being won by our own friends. To set the record straight we are giving below a few important references as an example which otherwise history proves:

Indian Major General(r) Koqara Bhimaya in one of his articles "Nuclear Deterrence in South Asia" (Published in Asian Survey, July 1996), writes:

"A skirmish with Pakistan forces provoked a major attack by the Pakistan Army in which the outnumbered Indians were driven back and a cease-fire agreed upon." (Page 653).

After five months the war began in Jammu and Kashmir and then on the international border. The Indian Major General narrates as follows:

"Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri was quick and decisive in enlarging the war".

That means the Indian Prime Minister hastily brought the war to the international boundary. Regarding the 1971 war, the same researcher writes the decision was purely in the hands of Indian forces. The attitude of Yahya Khan was very cautious, but then the internal pressure increased because of initial Indian invasion between November 22 and 24. In his words: "Particularly after India’s probing attack (Nov. 20-21) along the East Pakistan border". (Page. 655)

An American researcher "John G. Stoessinger" in his book "Why nations go to wars", has carried out comparison of wars between India and Pakistan in 1947, 1965 and 1971. The author has antipathy for Pakistan and the so-called "religious states" and has a soft corner for India. He observes:

that war started in an unexpected area -- the Runn of Katch.... where the Pakistan army quickly overpowered the Indian forces. Having thus gained an easy victory, Pakistan got dangerously over confident, while India was badly demoralized..... Having been defeated by China [1962] was another matter, but Pakistan’s military supremacy was not at all acceptable to the Indians. Lal Bahadar Shastri who succeeded Nehru, came under immense pressure to redress the defeat of Rann of Katch.

This is the real background of the 1965 war. Now let us see what happened in 1971.The above said American researcher observers:

"by mid-July 1971 Mrs. Gandhi fully realized that war with Pakistan will prove less costly than the economic burden of the refugee problem. On August 9, Mrs. Gandhi set aside her policy of non-alignment and entered into a 25-years pact of friendship with Russia. On the one hand she started diplomatic war against Pakistan and on the other made all arrangements to prepare Indian army for the attack. During early November the Indian parliament passed a resolution against Pakistan. Under this pressure Mrs. Gandhi decided to initiate the military operation and authorized the Indian forces to attack Pakistan forces on the East Pakistan front."

This was the 1971 war’s layout. Mrs. Gandhi was so courageous that after starting this aggressive war she declared in very clear words:

"If any country thinks that by calling us aggressors, it can pressurize us to forget our national interest, then that country is living in its own paradise and is welcome in it"

(London Times, December 3, 1971)

This is what the Indian character was in these two wars. And here our own ex-army generals are doing the ‘service’ of self humiliation.

The problem of national defence is not dependent on the personal wishes and whims but on objective facts . We have always held India as a neighbor and extended hand of friendship. But, from the very first day India has not accepted us a free and independent country. India is not only dreaming but through solid planning and continuous actions desires to liquidate and make us a vasal state like Nepal and Bhutan. Occupation of Junagarh, Hyderabad and Kashmir, the division according to an agreed formula of the assets left behind by the British, the network of conspiracies inside Pakistan and every kind of open and hidden intriguing plans, are clear proofs of this attitude. From Ghandhi, Nehru, Patel and Acharia Kirplani to present day leadership, there has not been any basic change in the Indian attitude. Some have spoken of their views and feelings in open words and others have expressed sugar-coatedly. Even recently at the Golden Jubilee celebrations, Pakistan’s freedom was presented as partition and destruction. The whole Indian and Western media is witness to this. Interesting point is that when the intellectual and diplomatic Indian prime minister Mr. I.K. Gujral was asked what he believes about the creation of Pakistan, he very cleverly replied: "the time has passed to decide whether the event was correct or wrong". He is ready to accept it as defacto but not dejure. The London Financial Times produced a special issue on India’s 50th anniversary. It has quoted the former Indian minister of state for foreign affairs, Salman Khurshid, who wrote in clear words:

"Whatever might have been the theoretical and ideological raison d’etre of Pakistan in 1947, subsequent events have certainly repudiated that claim".

The gentleman also complains that Pakistan strives for equal status in the region and this he feels was the real obstacle.

"Regrettably, this competition has been negative. Pakistan aspires to the same position as India".

Key Rift Factors

To understand the Pak-India relations, a central point should be made clear that India considers herself as an overlord and a superpower and thinks of her status and upper hand a privilege and right. Whereas other countries though having their different geophysical, population and economical levels, are not ready to compromise. There are three pivotal causes of India and Pakistan’s conflict. Unless either India or we ourselves change our attitude, it is not possible to establish an amicable neighborhood:

First, India is not accepting Pakistan a succeeding state of the Sub-Continent but thinks it a partition of India and a seceding country. What Pakistan expresses its freedom India calls it division, what Mr. Gandhi declared: "cutting Mother India to pieces". This poisonous thought is still present and whether they were Indian politicians and intellectuals or the British journalists and writers, all used the occasion of this golden jubilee to express their hart-burning desire. They declared the independence of India "the independence", and the independence of Pakistan "a partition or division".

Second, the two nation theory is still today a source of conflict as it was before independence. We do not deny that the points of view of India and ours are different, but we are not prepared to accept that only India, according to her own thinking, may resolve to construct her state and society and that we have no right to construct our country according to our wishes. Not to take the differences as authentic and discredit and debase other’s concept, religion, society and culture and not duly regarding the equality is in fact, the spirit of Imperialism and Dominionism. India even today is not ready to accept our demand that we may build our country in line with our beliefs and culture. According to Salman Khurshid, India is the negation of two nations theory, and the division, which has been done under this theory, still today, is artificial. This aggressive mentality and non-tolerance is the real gulf which is keeping the minds and souls apart.

Third, is the vaniy of India that it is a large country and it should be accepted as a regional leader and all others should remain subordinates. Under her canopy of regional security there is room for fudatory protectorates and satellites, but not for equal partners. Until Pakistan bows her head and accepts India’s predominance in the region, she will keep working on her policy of humiliating, weakening and compelling Pakistan to remain helpless.

These are the three basic issues on which either India changes her attitude accepting on equal basis the doctrinal, cultural and social differences and recognize the theory of friendship and neighborhood, or we be ready to compromise on our freedom, self governance, our separate cultural political, ideological, and economic existence ----- Without this how can the peace, prosperity, friendship and security system be ensured in the region?

The Indian Prospect

This picture of India’s leadership, policy-maker’s and intellectual’s mentality and their thoughts and planning, is not some vain speculation, and certainly not based on any prejudices. This is based on objective study and analysis. It is supported by solid research endures. Due to limited space we make few important references only. William J. Barends, in his book, India Pakistan and the great Powers" present India’s basic thought in this manner.

"The Muslim League leaders, who now ruled Pakistan, had shattered the dream of a free and united India... However tragic, it was practically inevitable that India would follow a hard line. Indian leaders were convinced that Pakistan would not survive as a nation – a judgement shared by some outside observers... Moreover, Indian leaders believed that Pakistan could not survive because it should not survive. As Nehru said: "Pakistan is a medieval state with an impossible theoretic concept. It should never have been created and it would never have been happened had the British not stood behind the foolish idea of Jinnah... We want to cooperate and work towards cooperation, and one day integration will inevitably come. If it will be in four, five, ten years – I do not know". How Indian official envisioned the reunion of the two countries, it is not clear."

British statesmen, soon after the partition were saying that India, due to her geophysical superiority will try hard for its supremacy and its leadership of South and South East Asia. "Only such a defence system will make the countries." of the area safe and defendable under India’s leadership (Nicholos Mansergh --- The Commonwealth and the Nations, London, 1948, p 160-161). The editor of the ‘The Statesman’, lan Stephens, in his book ‘Pakistan’(London, 1963) has stated, that after deep study of India he has reached the conclusion: That in the eyes of an average Hindu, Pakistan has no right to live as an independent country, even after the mutual consent and after so many years. (Page 220).

‘Keith Callard, in his book ‘Pakistan’s Foreign Policy’ (New York, 1957, pp. 4) says, "Great many Hindus still think that establishment of Pakistan was a tragic mistake, which should be corrected at any rate, and at least as far as East Bengal is concerned."

Soleig S. Harrison the American scholar who is known as a friend of India and a critic of Pakistan, in one of his articles, ‘Troubled India’ which was published in the well known magazine, ‘Foreign Affairs,’ June 1965 writes:

"The fulfillment of Indian nationalism requires an assertion of Hindu hegemony over the Muslims of the sub-continent in one form or another. Most Hindus would be satisfied with an acquiescent Pakistan within an Indian sphere of influence, some hope of a confederation, and a vocal view would welcome an excuse to annul Pakistan by force." (p. 319)

An Australian researcher ‘Ferone A. Vali’ in his article which was presented in a conference at the national university Canberra says: "India not only thinks of herself the only successor of the British rule, she also thinks to be a true hier-apparent of Hindu Muria, Gupta kingdoms and also the Islamic Mughal Empire’.

Practically, America is also giving a status of regional superpower to India. President Jimmy Carter, in his speech in the Indian parliament in 1978, had openly admitted this. Some other countries, without an open announcement, are practically giving that status to India. After the downfall of Russia and fearing China’s becoming an Asiatic world power, America as a foresight is trying to bring up India as her pawn. And India wants to get maximum advantage out of it, otherwise all the war machinery especially naval fleet and long range missiles she is collecting, has no reason to offer. If there is any justification possible, then it is a nightmare of becoming a superpower. And this is the matter that creates the far reaching threats for Pakistan.

Can Pakistan, closing her eyes to these facts that amounts to committing suicide, create an effective and successful defence strategy?