Challenges to Sovereignty

INTRODUCTION:
DRONE ATTCAKS:
ON May 21 this year, a US-controlled drone struck and killed Mullah Akhtar Mansour, chief of Afghan
Taliban, in the Pakistani province of Balochistan. Soon thereafter, Pakistani Interior Minister addressed a
press conference, terming the air strike ‘illegal, unacceptable and against the sovereignty’ of the country.
Similar sentiments were echoed by our military leadership. But this was not the first drone attack. Our
country has braved 322 such attacks since 2005 that left 2808 people dead and injured hundreds!

OSAMA BIN LADEN –OPERATION:

In 2011, a covert operation by two US helicopters in Abbottabad caused the extermination of Osama Bin
Laden, a prime terrorist wanted by the Americans for his involvement in 9/11 attacks. Any soul with the
basic understanding of international relations would infer that there must be a clandestine acceptance of
these attacks under pre-set conditions. How can one stand up to a super power within the prevailing
circumstances? Let us look at another episode.

SKIRMISHES ON TORKHUM BORDER

A smaller and weaker Afghan National Army began firing and shelling at Torkham border area during
June that resulted in martyrdom of many Pakistani soldiers and civilians. The reason for this skirmish
was that Pakistani authorities were building a crossing and fencing their own side of the border. While
peace was eventually restored, serious questions were raised about our capacity of independently
conducting the usual business of safeguarding our peoples and territory. The murky narrative around the
Durrand Line – which is an accepted international border between Afghanistan and Pakistan — became
alive again. We must revisit the tenets of our nationhood in the contemporary challenges caused to our
sovereignty with an objective to identify core issues and finding apposite solutions.

RECENT BALAKOT ATTACK

CONCEPT OF SOVERIGNITY:

Sovereignty of a nation is tested by the relative independence practiced during the conduct of normal
state affairs. In Pakistan, the real mantle of leadership oscillates between the government and military
establishment with the later dominating core policy affairs. Some political commentators categorise
Pakistan as a ‘security state’ as against a ‘social welfare state’, that the founding fathers and people
wanted her to become. One would expect that with so much emphasis on security, the territory and orders
would remain impregnable. Unfortunately, our history tells us otherwise.

LONG MILITARY RULES:

It is interesting to note that while Pakistan is a fruit of pure political struggle with final verdict
announced through the ballot of 1946 elections in British India, the losses occurred under military
regimes. During the tenure of a military regime, East Pakistan was lost in 1971 and during the reign of
another, Siachen glacier saw occupation in 1984. It has amply proved the fact that long tenures of
military rules are devastating for the overall sustenance of nation, especially when hostile countries
surround the border. With the exception of China, all our neighbouring countries have traded fires on our
borders during different time periods.

BLOW TO PAKISTAN’S SOVEREIGNTY:

Our ordinary folks are witness to the fact that sovereignty of the country has faced the greatest blow due
to the weak governance practices of the past and present regimes. The gross violation of territorial
frontiers by unwanted elements from across the border, weakened grips on crucial foreign policy matters,
incapability to streamline the unregulated links between various countries and local groups, inability to
generate a national agenda of governance and economic priorities and even increasing criticism of super
powers on most sensitive issues – such as war on terror – are few indications in this respect.

RISING INTERFERENCE OF NEO-CONS OF THE WEST:

Nationhood cannot be effectively practiced without the freedom of policy formulation and practice by
any country. In our case, the central fibre of our nation has been threatened due to the rising interference
of neo-cons of the west. State relations have been reduced to contractual arrangements for fulfilling the
various spelled out and even clandestine terms of reference. By accepting the roles to fight battles, even
wars for dubious objectives of global powers in our region, the various regimes in the past have
dangerously jeopardised the future of the entire country for its very short-term gains.

QUID’S EXAMPLE:

The founders of Pakistan were very categorical about the theory and practice of sovereignty. Even during
the transitional phase of acquiring independence, Mr Jinnah did not compromise on any minute matter
that may have cast a shadow on the working independence of Pakistan. History is replete with evidences
where he set aside otherwise attractive offers whenever an eclipse was found approaching towards the
independence of policy and action of the state. Refusal to accept Lord Mountbatten as the joint Governor-
General of the neo-independent dominions is an example in point. Also, despite the fact that Pakistan
faced real threats to its security and existence, Mr Jinnah refused to accept any direct interference from
any power including the United States. Once this balance glided below equilibrium, the sovereignty was
directly affected.

FAILURES OF GOVERNMENTS:
Thirty two years of military rule, in various ebbs and flows, transformed the issue of defence purchases
and cooperation into the policy of compromise. Whether it was the grant of Badaber post (near Peshawar)
to the USA for U-2 spy plane flights in 1950s or the fighting of proxy battles and wars, the sovereignty
was the most visible casualty. It is ironic to note that during the rule of Z.A. Bhutto, the aftermath of
1977 election could not be settled without the involvement of the ambassador of a “brotherly” country.
The same brotherly country hosted in exile another former Prime Minister and his clan. It was only the
sanity shown by our political and military leadership a few months ago that Pakistan refused to send
troops in the Yemen imbroglio – saving herself from being dragged in a power game of global powers
and ‘brother Muslim countries’.

FOREIGN INFLUENCES:
The outcome of direct foreign influence has spread out impacts. From foreign policy to social welfare
and from education to scientific developments, the implications can be felt. US meddling towards
changing the curricula of secondary, higher secondary and higher education for secularisation; inability
of Pakistan to evolve technologies for nuclear power generation despite being a nuclear weapon state;
unabated privatisation of enterprises and assets, including profit making concerns; forced promotion of
pseudo liberal values in the cultural domain and gradual maiming of civil society movements to pave the
way for elements compliant to regimes are some noted outcomes. The issue has been dealt so craftily that
even the manifestoes of leading political parties have not included restoration of sovereignty as a major
factor. Myths have been created that without direct support of foreign powers, the survival of the nation
may be jeopardised. And the foreign powers have used this handicap to their full advantage by making
the most of changing situations for their respective agendas.

SEVEN PRINCIPLES OF SOVERIGNITY:

Alistair McConnachie, a political activist in Great Britain, has outlined seven principles of sovereignty.
1. Political self-determination,
2. Economic sovereignty,
3. Border control,
4. Localization,
5. Food and water self-sufficiency,
6. Energy independence
7. Self-defense for self-determination comprise his outline.

If one evaluates status of Pakistan on these counts, many grave anomalies are found. Pakistan is one of
those few countries that were territorially large at birth but has shrunken in size. Many analysts are of the
view that the denial of rightful self-determination to the larger chunk of our population, in the more
populated wing in the East, caused this tragedy.

WATER SCARCITY:
water  security is the most serious challenge to pakistan due to several factors, particularly the increasing
pressure of population and urbanization, massive expansion of tube well irrigation, reduced levels of
precipitation caused by climate change and the accelerated retreat of himalayan glaciers. By international
standards, pakistan was already a water-scarce country in 1992 at 1700 m3 available per capita, according
to unfpa/ministry of population welfare. By 2003, pakistan’s per capita availability of water declined to
the extent that it was categorized as a water-stress country by the world bank, surpassing ethiopia and on
par with african countries such as libya and algeria. Pakistan is now a water-scarce country at 1200 m3
per capita per year.  Water availability (per capita) will be 855m3 by the year 2020. Water security is the
most serious challenge for Pakistan due to several factors, particularly the increasing pressure of
population and urbanization, massive expansion of tube-well irrigation, reduced levels of precipitation
caused by climate change, and the accelerated retreat of Himalayan glaciers. Pakistan receives less the
average rainfall in the world, therefore, the Indus River System which is the lifeline for Pakistan has been
severely affected. However, the political, economic, and technological management of water resources
has been woeful because of the lack of consensus on the construction of mega projects. According to the
World Bank, Pakistan is moving from a water stressed country to a water scarce country. From
agricultural purposes to power generation; from domestic use to industrial purposes, the water resources
have been used extensively without enough management on sustainable grounds. Recently, Pakistan’s
eastern neighbour has adopted an extremely hostile posture, linking cooperation on Indus Water Treaty
with situation in Occupied Kashmir. If not amicably resolved, this would further aggravate the water
security issue. Apropos in view, carry out an appraisa

The elephant in the room

Supporters of Sunni Tehreek shout slogans demanding a military operation against the Taliban| Reuters
After dithering for decades and suffering the loss of over 60,000 people with twice as many injured and
maimed, Pakistan’s ruling elite has finally declared that terrorist organisations are an existential threat to
the country. The moaning and groaning nation, after many years, stands behind its security force to fight
the hydra-headed monster of violence. But fighting terrorism is attacking symptoms only and not the
diseases which have ailed Pakistan since its inception.

The edifice of terrorist organisations in Pakistan is built on the foundation of religious extremism.
Terrorism needs an ideology to motivate people to commit an act without fear of consequences and, in
Pakistan, there is an unending supply of suicide bombers and fidayeen nourished on this religious
extremism. The exclusionist interpretation of Islam propagated by al-Qaeda, ISIS and their various
franchisees attracts people to join terrorist outfits and lay down their lives for it.
These extremists know that their brand of Sharia cannot be imposed in Muslim-majority countries
through a democratic system. Being an irrational minority which wants to roll back history, the only way
their version of khilafat can be imposed is through the barrel of a gun. Hence, terrorism is their chosen
tactic.

The imperative is that religious extremism should be routed out by promoting an alternate narrative for a
moderate and secular Pakistan. At present, unlimited space is available to extremists, since religion is
also used by the rulers to further their vested interests.

Our unguided urban boom

AFP
One of the most potent existential threats to Pakistan is the proliferation of dysfunctional cities. Among
the fastest urbanising countries in the region, Pakistan’s very substantial rural population increasingly
seeks opportunities in its largest cities. Of the 10 most populated metropolitan areas in Pakistan, eight
have a population in excess of four million. Every one of these cities is likely to have a population of
over 10 million within the next two decades, or maybe sooner. Karachi alone is pushing 20 million, but
Lahore, Faisalabad, Gujranwala, Multan and Peshawar all represent massive challenges. If history is any
guide, we will begin to engage with the challenges of a city only when bodies in gunny bags become a
cultural mainstay.

One of the principal entry points to a public discourse around cities could be decentralisation. However,
the specific political economy of sub-provincial governance in the country has populated that trajectory
with all kinds of pitfalls. Improved delivery of basic services, like education, also offers an interesting
starting point to examine the state of our cities — but Pakistanis are not waiting around for their
governments to wake up.

Ultimately, without robust, moral leadership, Pakistan cannot hope for a way out of the paralysis of its
cities. They are all still managed as if it was 1899. Where a visionary leader who acts to chart out a vision
for the Pakistani city of the 21st century will come from, however, is a mystery. In the meantime, our
cities will continue plunging their inhabitants deeper into all the complexities and challenges of urban
nightmares constructed by a complete and utter lack of leadership and imagination.

SUGGESTIONS:

Centrifugal forces are still at work in some parts of our country which must be dealt through a candid and
reliable political process. The largest province of the country – area wise – must be dealt with political
foresight by responding to the political, economic and administrative problems with sincerity. Complaints
from Baluchistan are abounding where men in khaki are blamed for suspecting ordinary souls to be
collaborators of miscreants. Our establishment must ponder to devise ways that can make every citizen
take pride in their citizenship of this country due to the benefits and freedom that it offers – this must not
be reduced to a privileged few as has been the case for many years now. It is amusing to note that our
political leadership wastes no moment to claim progress – or dreams of it – by way of investments from
‘friendly’ foreign countries. China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) seems to be the single most
important flagship enterprise where the government has put all its weight. Our leaders will do well by
evolving policies to support and promote small and medium scale entrepreneurship, potentials of which
are found across the country. Cutting administrative expenses, transforming local resources and creating
efficiency by reducing the cost of doing business are some options to harness local resources and
potentials. It must be remembered that manufacturing, production and services generate more
employment and prosperity than trading. Pakistan has fared poorly in terms of managing its energy
needs. The cheap hydroelectric option is overtaken by costly thermal alternatives. If we generate cheap
electricity by building small and medium scale dams, then our manufacturers will be able to compete
with foreign (read Chinese) producers. Similarly the country can overcome its looming water shortage by
strategic planning and building of reservoirs. Monsoons bring enough waters which get wasted because
of inappropriate management of our drainage channels and absence of reservoirs. We must safeguard
land to construct this vital infrastructure for our future survival. Thousands of acres of land is devoured
by the real estate schemes in a totally haywire manner. Developers build along highways and other
conduits of movement, limiting opportunities for amenities such as water reservoirs. A national resolve is
needed on this vital count.