While Pakistan has
relatively definable boundaries, it lacks the ethnic and social cohesion of a
strong nation-state. Three of the four major Pakistani ethnic groups, Punjabis,
Pashtuns and Baluch, are not entirely in Pakistan. India has an entire state
called Punjab, 42 percent of Afghanistan is Pashtun, and Iran has a significant
Baluch minority in its Sistan-Baluchistan province.
Thus, the challenge to
Pakistan’s survival is twofold. First, the only route of expansion that makes
any sense is along the fertile Indus River Valley, but that takes Pakistan into
India’s front yard. The converse is also true: India’s logical route of
expansion through Punjab takes it directly into Pakistan’s core. Second,
Pakistan faces an insurmountable internal problem. In its efforts to secure
buffers, it is forced to include groups that, because of mountainous terrain,
are impossible to assimilate.
The first challenge is
one that has received little media attention of late but remains the issue for
long-term Pakistani survival. The second challenge is the core of Pakistan’s
“current” problems: The central government in Islamabad simply cannot assert
its writ into the outer regions, particularly in the Pashtun northwest, as well
as it can at its core.
The Indus core could
be ruled by a democracy, it is geographically, economically and culturally
cohesive, but Pakistan as a whole cannot be democratically ruled from the Indus
core and remain a stable nation-state. The only type of government that can
realistically attempt to subjugate the minorities in the outer regions, who
make up more than 40 percent of Pakistan’s population, is a harsh one (i.e., a
military government). It is no wonder, then, that the parliamentary system
Pakistan inherited from its days of British rule broke down within four years
of independence, which was gained in 1947 when Great Britain split British
India into Muslim-majority Pakistan and Hindu-majority India. After the 1948
death of Pakistan’s founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, British-trained civilian
bureaucrats ran the country with the help of the army until 1958, when the army
booted out the bureaucrats and took over. Since then there have been four
military coups, and the army has ruled the country for 33 of its 61 years in
existence.
While Pakistani
politics is rarely if ever discussed in this context, the country’s military leadership
implicitly understands the dilemma of holding onto the buffer regions to the
north and west. Long before military leader Gen. Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq (1977-1988) began Islamizing the state, the army’s
central command sought to counter the secular, left-wing, ethno-nationalist
tendencies of the minority provinces by promoting an Islamic identity,
particularly in the Pashtun belt. At first, the idea was to strengthen the
religious underpinning of the republic in order to meld the outlands more
closely with the core. Later, in the wake of the Soviet military intervention
in Afghanistan (1978-1989), Pakistan’s army began using radical Islamism as an
arm of foreign policy. Islamist militant groups, trained or otherwise aided by
the government, were formed to push Islamabad’s influence into both Afghanistan
and Indian-administered Kashmir.
As Pakistan would
eventually realize, however, the strategy of promoting an Islamic identity to
maintain domestic cohesion while using radical Islamism as an instrument of
foreign policy would do far more harm than good.
Pakistan’s
Islamization policy culminated in the 1980s, when Pakistani, U.S. and Saudi
intelligence services collaborated to drive Soviet troops out of Afghanistan by
arming, funding and training mostly Pashtun Afghan fighters. When the Soviets
withdrew in 1989, Pakistan was eager to forge a post-communist Islamist
republic in Afghanistan, one that would be loyal to Islamabad and hostile to
New Delhi. To that end, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency
threw most of its support behind Islamist rebel leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar of Hizb i-Islami.
But things did not
quite go as planned. When the Marxist regime in Kabul finally fell in 1992, a
major intra-Islamist power struggle ensued, and Hekmatyar lost much of his
influence. Amid the chaos, a small group of madrassah teachers and students who
had fought against the Soviets rose above the factions and consolidated control
over Afghanistan’s Kandahar region in 1994. The ISI became so impressed by this
Taliban movement that it dropped Hekmatyar and joined with the Saudis in
ensuring that the Taliban would emerge as the vanguard of the Pashtuns and the
rulers of Kabul.
The ISI was not the
only one competing for the Taliban’s attention. A small group of Arabs led by
Osama bin Laden reopened shop in Afghanistan in 1996, looking to use a
Taliban-run government in Afghanistan as a launchpad for reviving the
caliphate. Ultimately, this would involve overthrowing all secular governments
in the Muslim world (including the one sitting in Islamabad.) The secular,
military-run government in Pakistan, on the other hand, was looking to use its
influence on the Taliban government to wrest control of Kashmir from India.
While Pakistan’s ISI occasionally collaborated with al Qaeda in Afghanistan on
matters of convenience, its goals were still ultimately incompatible with those
of bin Laden. Pakistan was growing weary of al Qaeda’s presence on its western
border, but soon became preoccupied with an opportunity developing to the east.
The Pakistani
military saw an indigenous Muslim uprising in Indian-administered Kashmir in 1989
as a way to revive its claims over Muslim-majority Kashmir. It did not take
long before the military began developing small guerrilla armies of Kashmiri
Islamist irregulars for operations against India. When he was a two-star
general and the army’s director-general of military operations, former
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf played a leading role in refining the
plan, which became fully operational in the 1999 Kargil
War. Pakistan’s war strategy was to infiltrate Kashmiri Islamist guerrillas across
the Line of Control (LoC) while Pakistani forces occupied high-altitude
positions on Kargil Mountain. When India became aware
of the infiltration, it sought to dislodge the guerrillas, at which point
Pakistani artillery opened up on Indian troops positioned at lower-altitude
base camps. While the Pakistani plan was initially successful, Indian forces
soon regained the upper hand and U.S. pressure helped force a Pakistani
retreat.
But the defeat at Kargil did not stop Pakistan from pursuing its Islamist
militant proxy project in Kashmir. Groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Hizb-ul-Mujahideen,
Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami, Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Al Badr spread their
offices and training camps throughout Pakistani-occupied Kashmir under the
guidance of the ISI. Whenever Islamabad felt compelled to turn up the heat on
New Delhi, these militants would carry out operations against Indian targets,
mostly in the Kashmir region.
India, meanwhile,
would return the pressure on Islamabad by supporting Baluchi rebels in western
Pakistan and providing covert support to the ethnic Tajik-dominated Northern
Alliance, the Taliban’s main rival in Afghanistan. While Pakistan grew more and
more distracted by supporting its Islamist proxies in Kashmir, the Taliban grew
more attached to al Qaeda, which provided fighters to help the Taliban against
the Northern Alliance as well as funding when the Taliban were crippled by an
international embargo. As a result, al Qaeda extended its influence over the
Taliban government, which gave al Qaeda free rein to plan and stage the
deadliest terrorist attack to date against the West.
The Post 9/11 Environment
On Sept. 11, 2001,
when the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon were attacked, the United
States put Pakistan in a chokehold: Cooperate immediately in toppling the
Taliban regime, which Pakistan had nurtured for years, or face destruction.
Musharraf tried to buy some time by reaching out to Taliban leaders like Mullah
Omar to give up bin Laden, but the Taliban chief refused, making it clear that
Pakistan had lost against al Qaeda in the battle for influence over the
Taliban.
Just a few months
after the 9/11 attacks, in December 2001, Kashmiri Islamist militants launched
a major attack on the Indian parliament in New Delhi. Still reeling from the
pressure it was receiving from the United States, Islamabad was now faced with
the wrath of India. Both dealing with an Islamist militant threat, New Delhi
and Washington tag-teamed Islamabad and tried to get it to cut its losses and dismantle
its Islamist militant proxies.
To fend off some of
the pressure, the Musharraf government banned LeT and
JeM, two key Kashmiri Islamist groups fostered by the
ISI and with close ties to al Qaeda. India was unsatisfied with the ban, which
was mostly for show, and proceeded to mass a large military force along the LoC
in Kashmir. The Pakistanis responded with their own deployment, and the two
countries stood at the brink of nuclear war. U.S. intervention allowed India
and Pakistan to step back from the precipice. In the process, Washington
extracted concessions from Islamabad on the counterterrorism front, and
official Pakistani support for the Afghan Taliban withered within days.
The Devolution of the Secret Service (ISI)
The post 9/11
shake-up ignited a major crisis in the Pakistani military establishment. On one
hand, the military was under extreme pressure to stamp out the jihadists along
its western border. On the other hand, the military was fearful of U.S. and
Indian interests aligning against Pakistan. Islamabad’s primary means of
keeping Washington as an ally was its connection to the jihadist insurgency in
Afghanistan. So Islamabad played a double game, offering piecemeal cooperation
to the United States while maintaining ties with its Islamist militant proxies
in Afghanistan.
But the ISI’s grip
over these proxies was already loosening. In the run-up to 9/11, al Qaeda not
only had close ties to the Taliban regime, but also had reached out to ISI
handlers whose job it was to maintain links with the array of Islamist militant
proxies supported by Islamabad. Many of the intelligence operatives who had
embraced the Islamist ideology were working to sabotage Islamabad’s new
alliance with Washington, which threatened to destroy the Islamist militant
universe they had created. While the ISI leadership was busy trying to adjust
to the post-9/11 operating environment, others within the middle and junior
ranks of the agency started to engage in activities not necessarily sanctioned
by their leadership.
As the influence of
the Pakistani state declined, al Qaeda’s influence rose. By the end of 2003,
Musharraf had become the target of at least three al Qaeda assassination
attempts. In the spring of 2004, Musharraf, again under pressure from the
United States, was forced to send troops into the tribal badlands for the first
time in the history of the country. Pakistani military operations to root out
foreign fighters ended up killing thousands in the Pashtun areas, creating
massive resentment against the central government.
In October 2006, when
a deadly U.S. Predator strike hit a madrassah in Bajaur
agency, killing 82 people, the stage was set for a jihadist insurgency to move
into Pakistan proper. The Pakistani Taliban linked up with al Qaeda to carry out
scores of suicide attacks, most against military targets and all aiming to
break Islamabad’s resolve to combat the insurgency. A major political debacle
threw Islamabad off course in March 2007, when Musharraf’s government was hit
by a pro-democracy movement after he dismissed the country’s chief justice.
Four months later, a raid on Islamabad’s Red Mosque, which Islamist militants
had occupied, threw more fuel onto the insurgent fires, igniting suicide
attacks in major Pakistani cities like Karachi and Islamabad, while the writ of
the state continued to erode in the NWFP and FATA.
Musharraf was forced
to step down as army chief in November 2007 and as president in August 2008,
ushering in an incoherent civilian government. In December 2007, the world got
a good glimpse of just how dangerous the murky ISI-jihadist nexus had become
when the political chaos in Islamabad was exploited with a bold suicide attack
that killed Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. Historically, the
Pakistani military had been relied on to step in and restore order in such a
crisis, but the military itself was coming undone as the split widened between
those willing and those unwilling to work with the jihadists. Now, in the final
days of 2008, the jihadist insurgency is raging on both sides of the
Afghan-Pakistani border, with the country’s only guarantor against collapse,
the military, in disarray.
India has watched
warily as Pakistan’s jihadist problems have intensified over the past several
years. Of utmost concern to New Delhi have been the scores of Kashmiri Islamist
militants who had been operating on the ISI’s payroll, and who had a score to
settle with India. As Pakistan became more and more distracted with battling
jihadists within its own borders, the Kashmiri Islamist militant groups began
loosening their bonds with the Pakistani state. Groups such as LeT and JeM, who had been banned
and forced underground following the 2001 Indian parliament attack, started
spreading their tentacles into major Indian cities. These groups retained links
to the ISI, but the Pakistani military had bigger issues to deal with and
needed to distance itself from the Kashmiri Islamists. If these groups were to
continue to carry out operations, Pakistan needed some plausible deniability.
Over the past several
years, Kashmiri Islamist militant groups have carried out sporadic attacks
throughout India. The attacks have involved commercial-grade explosives rather
than the military-grade RDX that is traditionally used in Pakistani-sponsored attacks,
another sign that the groups are distancing themselves from Pakistan. The
attacks, mostly against crowded transportation hubs, religious sites (both
Hindu and Muslim) and marketplaces, were designed to ignite riots between
Hindus and Muslims that would compel the Indian government to crack down and
revive the Kashmir cause.
However, India’s
Hindu nationalist and largely moderate Muslim communities failed to take the bait.
It was only a matter of time before these militant groups began seeking out
more strategic targets that would affect India’s economic lifelines and ignite
a crisis between India and Pakistan. As these groups became increasingly
autonomous, they also started linking up with members of al Qaeda’s
transnational jihadist movement, who had a keen interest in stirring up
conflict between India and Pakistan to divert the attention of Pakistani forces
to the east.
By November 2008,
this confluence of forces, Pakistan’s raging jihadist insurgency, the
devolution of the ISI and the increasing autonomy of the Kashmiri groups,
created the conditions for one of the largest militant attacks in history to
hit Mumbai, highlighting the extent to which Pakistan has lost control over its
Islamist militant proxy project.
The India-Pakistan Rivalry
The very real
possibility that India and Pakistan could soon engage in what would be their
fifth war after nearly five years of peace talks is a testament to the
endurance of their 60-year rivalry. The seeds of animosity were sown during the
bloody 1948 partition, in which Pakistan and India split from each other along
a Hindu/Muslim divide. The sorest point of contention in this subcontinental
divorce centered around the Muslim-majority region of Kashmir, whose princely
Hindu ruler at the time of the partition decided to join India, leading the
countries to war a little more than two months after their independence. That
war ended with India retaining two-thirds of Kashmir and Pakistan gaining
one-third of the Himalayan territory, with the two sides separated by a Line of
Control (LoC). The two rivals fought two more full-scale wars, one in 1965 in
Kashmir, and another in 1971 that culminated in the secession of East Pakistan
(now Bangladesh.)
Shortly after India
fought an indecisive war with China in 1962, the Indian government embarked on
a nuclear mission, conducting its first test in 1974. By then playing catch-up,
the Pakistanis launched their own nuclear program soon after the 1971 war. The
result was a full-blown nuclear arms race, with the South Asian rivals devoting
a great deal of resources to developing and testing short-range and
intermediate missiles. In 1998, Pakistan and India conducted a series of
nuclear tests that earned international condemnation and officially nuclearized
the subcontinent.
Once the nuclear
issue was added to the equation, Pakistan became bolder in its use of Islamist
militant proxies to keep India locked down. Such groups became Pakistan’s
primary tool in its military confrontation, as the presence of nuclear weapons,
from Pakistan’s point of view, significantly decreased the possibility of
full-scale conventional war. Pakistan’s ISI also had a hand in a Sikh rebel
movement in India in the 1980s, and it continues to use Bangladesh as a
launchpad for backing a number of separatist movements in India’s restive
northeast. In return, India would back Baluchi rebels in Pakistan’s western
Baluchistan province and extend covert support to the anti-Taliban Northern
Alliance in Afghanistan throughout the 1990s.
Indian movements in
Afghanistan, a country Pakistan considers a key buffer state for extending its
strategic depth and guarding against invasions from the west, will always keep
Islamabad on edge. When Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan in 1979, Pakistan was
trapped in an Indian-Soviet vise, making it all the more imperative for the
ISI’s support of the Afghan mujahideen to succeed in driving the Soviets back
east.
Pakistan spent most
of the 1990s trying to consolidate its influence in Kabul to protect its
western frontier. By 2001, however, Pakistan once again started to feel the
walls closing in. The 9/11 attacks, followed shortly thereafter by a Kashmiri
Islamist militant attack on the Indian parliament, brought the United States
and India into a tacit alliance against Pakistan. Both wanted the same thing,
an end to Islamist militancy, and this time there was no Cold War paradigm to
prevent New Delhi and Washington from having a broader, more strategic
relationship.
This was Pakistan’s
worst nightmare. The military knew Washington’s post-9/11 alliance with
Islamabad was short-term and tactical in nature in order to facilitate the U.S.
war in Afghanistan. They also knew that the United States was seeking a
long-term strategic alliance with the Indians to sustain pressure on Pakistan,
hedge against Russia and China and protect supply lines running from the
oil-rich Persian Gulf. In essence, the United States felt temporarily trapped
in a short-term relationship with Pakistan while in the long-run, for myriad
strategic reasons, it desired an alliance with India. Pakistan has attempted to
play a double game with Washington by offering piecemeal cooperation in
battling the jihadists while retaining its jihadist card. But this is becoming
an increasingly difficult balancing act for Pakistan, as India and the United
States lose their tolerance for Pakistan’s Islamist militant franchise and the
state’s loss of control over that franchise.
For updates
click homepage here