Pakistan has an Image Problem
Khalid Khokhar


SOMINI SENGUPTA, in her article titled “Leader Faces Increasing Political Challenges” published in The New York Times on August 18, 2006, has raised Washington’s simmering concerns about Pakistan’s effort to root out Taliban along 16,000 Km Pakistan-Afghanistan bordering area. Like-wise Stephen Cohen, in his recent book “The Idea of Pakistan”, has doubted Pakistan’s enthusiasm in tracking down al Qaeda. Pakistan is viewed by some westerners as ‘rogue state’, and according to French intellectual Bernard-Henri Levy, Pakistan is “the most delinquent of nations”. Now, it appears paradoxical when Western countries blame Pakistan for not doing enough to clamp down on terrorist activities, and yet consider Pakistan as their staunchest ally having an unswerving resolve to eliminate terrorism in its all forms and manifestations. Notwithstanding, majority of Pakistanis are moderate and appreciate the thesis of “enlightened moderation” propounded by President Gen Pervez Musharraf, however, very few are extremists sitting on the fringe of tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. These forces are presenting a warped image of Islam and Pakistan and are thereby damaging it enormously at the international level. It is beyond doubt that Pakistan has gone a long way to fight out terrorism and sacrificed almost 400-500 of precious lives in over 70 operations since US declared war on terror in 2001. Even then, Pakistan is often accused of “doing not enough”. Why it is so? Realistically speaking, Pakistan’s problems are rooted in its bad image. Negative image has immensely damaged Pakistan’s reputation at international level. What ever they contribute, it is multiplied by zero. In the last military operation in Waziristan area couple of months ago, Pakistan managed to bust most of the militant camps and forced the local tribesmen for a truce and negotiations. Consequently, bulk of al Qaeda fugitives found “safe havens” inside Afghanistan, fomenting much of the violence that led to more than 600 deaths in Afghanistan in the past three months or so. This achievement also went against Pakistan when US forces stationed in Afghanistan accused Pakistan of “being soft on Talibans.”
Then, what is the solution? How to dilute the hard face of Pakistan and to project soft image? A 'soft image of Pakistan' denotes projecting before the world its social and cultural development, whether it is related to culture, sports or tourism. Towards that end, by painting a factual and realistic picture of ourselves, we will be able to re-orient a change in the perception of international community. Pakistan has realized that its tarnished image is the result of a deliberate effort on the part of the western media to malign our country's image. We have to accept the fact that Pakistan's reputation as a terrorist state has developed due to exaggerated reporting of periodic incidents of discrimination against women and religious minorities; religious and ethnic intolerance and acts of terrorism such as suicide attacks targeting religious places of worship or high profile individuals, not to mention the kidnapping and even murder of foreigners.
Bettering Pakistan's image requires putting our house in order first and creating a society that is progressive and tolerant in its outlook and behaviour. Islam teaches us to practice moderation and as long as every thing is done within limits. The only way we can project a softer image of Pakistan to the world is through print as well as electronic media. Media plays a very powerful role in projecting any county’s culture and customs. Our talk shows, films, dramas and public appearances are ways through which a very positive and powerful image of Pakistan can be put forward. There are more civic liberties in Pakistan today than before. We have freedom of speech, free media, and free press. We are more liberal now than ever. Then why true image is not projected abroad? The Pakistan that most people in the West read about in newspapers, see on television or hear on the radio, is radically different from Pakistan that we live in today. Our job is to project what we (Pakistanis) see as the ‘real Pakistan’. It is important to achieve positive coverage of Pakistan in the western media through non-political stories on culture, geography, history, education, the economy. Holding of music, concerts and festivals in the country will not only depict a lighter side of Pakistan but will also help in diluting the stigma of being an extremist state. The government has been considering opening “cultural centres” abroad and making economic and commercial wings in the missions more effective, in order to help enhance our image. The sociologists agree that development in the “material culture” (tangible things) promotes immaterial culture (ideas, intangibles, etc.). In this regard, development of the peripheral area of Mausoleum of the Quaid-i-Azam, Lok Virsa in Islamabad, 75 feet high monument at West Point on Shakarparian, monument at Walton Lahore, Jashn-i-Baharan at Lahore, Basant, marathon race, launching ceremony of Pakistani motor racing team, international Industrial Expo at Karachi, opening of the 17-day 'Qaumi Yakjehti Mela', development of tourism to Northern areas, Bab-e-Pakistan, being constructed in Lahore (depict the culture of all the provinces and raise awareness about Pakistan’s national objectives and promote national solidarity) are some of the fields instrumental in building and presenting a soft image of Pakistan before the world.

Peace-Time Role of Pak Armed Forces
Robina Ali Zaidi

After the creation of Pakistan, geo-political compulsions and peculiar security environment warranted military an important role in nation-building and safeguarding the territorial frontiers of nascent state as India did not accept Pakistan’s existence wholeheartedly. The initial civil governments in Pakistan were so preoccupied with the gigantic problems of the day that they had to involve the military forces in the development of the country. Hence it was the beginning of a harmonious working relationship between civil and military in the country.
The interplay between civil and military bureaucracies offered the much-needed help at this critical juncture of Pakistan history. Both institutions had a federal outlook and were well fitted to take on nation-building tasks. Thus the concept of Pakistani nationalism owes much to the compatible interplay between civil and military organization right from the initial days of independence. Military being the most disciplined and responsible institution of Pakistan had to contribute towards national security which it did. Besides defending the national borders and helping people and the civil administration at the hours of crises at the first call, it has not reneged from contributing towards restructuring of various institutions and departments. It can be safely said that military has set very positive and healthy trends in Pakistan’s society by going beyond the call of their duty. It will not be irrelevant to review the socio-economic contributions of Military in Pakistan’s civil sector.
Apart from strengthening the defence of the country, these defenders perform multifarious duties during calamities with efficiency and promptitude. Vital role as the first responders played by the troops in aid to civil administration deserves a special mention in the field of natural calamities such as floods, earthquakes, epidemics etc. Pakistan Army, starting with safe transportation of refugees at the time of partition, has been frequently called upon to assist the nation in rescue and relief operations. In addition to lending a helping hand in rehabilitation work, it assists in the maintenance of law and order which is one of the pre-requisites and corollary of economic well-being of the country. Pakistan Army has had to put its reputation at stake in order to restore the normalcy whenever law and order situation arises, may it be sectarian, linguistic or ethnic strife. Army’s efforts in maintaining peace in rural and urban Sindh is indeed an undeniable fact.
Pakistan Armed Forces’ medical teams have been the reliable source of promoting health facilities both in normal and emergency-like situations within and outside the country. The Armed Forces have some of the best medical facilities and institutions across the country such as Cardiology Centre, Bone Marrow Transplant Centre, Army Burn Centre and Armed Forces Institute of Rehabilitation. They are running and organizing military hospitals and mobile dental units, which are also open to civil population across the country. Moreover, medical teams of Army are providing free medical services in the remote areas of the country such as Northern Areas and FATA. The Army Medical Corps has always actively responded to whenever called by the nation to help in the face of calamities like floods and earthquakes. Every year about 30 doctors and 200 paramedics are sent on Hajj Medical mission to cater for the medical needs of entire Pakistani Hajj contingent at Mekkah, Madina and Jeddah. In addition to Pakistanis, a number of Hujjaj from other countries also benefit from Pakistan’s medical facilities. Commendable services have been rendered in Cambodia, Somalia, Bosnia, Eastern Slovenia, Kuwait and Haiti by Army Medical Corps while on the United Nations Missions.
While putting their trust in its integrity and impartiality, successive governments entrusted Pak Army thrice with the task of holding free, fair and transparent elections in 1993, 1997 and 2001. Under devolution of power plan, the Army is successfully supervising all phases of current Local Bodies elections in the areas which are dubbed sensitive from law and order point and view. Last time, the Army was also assigned the task of supporting the census department in conducting a correct demographic census in the country. Pakistan is an agricultural country, as a service to farmers Pakistan Army almost every year assists civil administration in canals desilting work. This is a major contribution of Army towards agriculture and irrigational development.
During last year’s devastating earthquake, Pakistan Armed Forces especially Army rendered commendable services in Azad Kashmir and Hazara division of the NWFP. Pakistan Army along with NGOs first led the rescue operation and then it has remained engaged proactively in the rehabilitation and reconstruction activities. Pakistan Army by establishing camps across the affected areas played a vital role in the relief work. It did an exemplary job by opening reads and repairing bridges in order to have an access to the affected mountainous terrain. The selflessness and dedication of all officers, men, engineers, doctors and aviation pilots during that hour of trial were highly appreciated the world over.
Likewise, a large number of personnel of Pakistan Army, Navy, Coast Guards and Frontier Constabulary participated in the rescue and relief operations last year when floods played havoc with the country especially in upper NWFP and Punjab and southern Balochistan. In Pasni, southern Balochistan where over 20,000 people living in small scattered villages in the area got trapped as the result of a dam burst, Pakistan Armed Forces personnel managed to save them through supply and rescue operations by the means of helicopters.
At all these emergency points, the Pakistan Armed Forces in their unique capacity of the first responders came forward and efficiently discharged their services to the nation. What is extraordinarily impressive is that no matter what caste, creed or community they belonged to, they worked as a team and as loyal and faithful Pakistanis, oblivious of racial, ethnic, provincial and religious profiling.
Pakistan Armed Forces have served the nation in every ordeal. They have safeguarded the frontiers, preserved the integrity and independence of their motherland and upheld the honour and esteem of the nation. Possessing, retaining and respecting diversity is their greatest strength. Their morale is always high; nothing deters their resolve and conviction to serve their motherland selflessly. This rare breed rises above and beyond the call of duty when it senses danger and never hesitates to offer supreme sacrifice. Their deeds of gallantry, valor and the fearless spirit of self-sacrifice, is a source of inspiration for the nation and future generations. They manifest a strict sense of discipline, physical endurance, team-spirit, self-sacrifice, selfless devotion and unmatched courage when it comes to holding aloft the banner of their country.

INDIA’s POLICY TOWARDS CHINA
Muhammad Asad

US-India Nuclear Cooperation Bill in the House of Representatives has been passed. Manmohan’s left allies want the bill to be discussed in Indian parliament. To pacify its leftist allies, Manmohan has told the legislators that Indian government will remain non-committal until the final text of the bill is received. And India will not accept any unreasonable conditions on its nuclear programme (July 27, 2006).
The underlying reason for quick clearance of the bill is the China factor_Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defence Review singles out China as the country with the “greatest potential” to compete militarily with the US and put “regional military balances at risk” (S Rajagopalan, “US sees ally in India, rival in China”, HindustanTimes.com, Washington, February 4, 2006). The document observes: (a) China could “field disruptive military technologies” that could over time offset traditional US military advantages, (b) India is “an emerging great power and a key strategic partner” in the global security environment in the 21st century. The Indo-US nuke deal embodies resolve of the two countries to “transform the US-India relationship into a global partnership that will provide leadership in areas of mutual concern and interest”. “Shared values by long-standing, multi-ethnic democracies provide the foundation for continued and increased strategic cooperation and represent an important opportunity for our two countries”.
India is aware of US policy makers’ affinity. However, they do not want to alarm China. As such, the hallmark of India's current foreign policy towards China is equivocation.
India's China policy is ostensibly based on Panchsheel principles that are mutual respect, non-aggression, non-interference and peaceful existence. But, it is actually based on Chanakya's Mandal principle, which states 'all neighbouring countries are actual or potential enemies'.
The duality of India's foreign policy towards China is obvious_ During his visit to China, the A. B. Vajpayee (former Indian prime minister) admitted China's suzerainty over Tibet. Even in his written statement before the Lok Sabha, he said, 'On Tibet, I would like to assure this House that there is no change in our decades old policy. We have never doubted that the Tibet Autonomous Region is a part of the territory of the People's Republic of China". But, in a subsequent press conference, he clarified that there was no cataclysmic change in the status quo and India's views on disputes with China.
After the visit, the Indian delegation told newsmen that 'the Chinese draft wanted India to use the word "inalienable" for both Tibet and Taiwan being part of its territory, but India did not go the whole hog with this phraseology. Frontline dated July 18, 2003 reported, 'Indian officials were at pains to point out that they had used the term "People's Republic of China", and not China- the PRC being an entity that came into existence in 1949'.
“What was the status quo? Kiran Kumar Thaplyal and Shiva Nandan Misra in - Select Battles in Indian History: From Earliest Times to 2000 A.D, (Volume II, page 632), point out 'India gave major concession to China by giving up military, communications, and postal right she also withdrew military detachments from Yatung and Gyantse. By this treaty (1954) India indirectly recognized Chinese sovereignty (as against suzerainty) over Tibet referring to the latter as Tibet region of China'.
India's intrusions into the Chinese territory are a stark contradiction of her status quo concerning the Chinese territory adjoining her so-called state of ‘Arunachal Pradesh’. The aftermath of the India-China War, also, was acceptance of Chinese point of view by India.
The vicissitudes of India - China Relations (1950 - 1962) reflect that India unquestioningly accepted China's control of Tibet. India's policy on Tibet during the British rule was to secure Tibet as a buffer state between India and China (fear of red China and the USSR).
Yet, to China's chagrin, India spurred Tibetans to expel the Chinese mission from Lhasa in the middle of 1949. This event forced the Republic of China in January 1950 to claim Tibet as part of China. Induction of Chinese army into that region in October 1950 vapourised the Englishman-conceived buffer between India and China.
India made muffled protests and then, according to military historians, 'meekly acquiesced' to China's forward policy. In November 1950, when EI Salvador requested that Tibetans plea be heard by the United Nation, the Indian delegate did not support it. United States and Britain could not exploit the issue, as India, China's immediate neighbour, did not vote for Salvadorian proposal.
India acquiesced to construction of strategic roads, linking China with Tibet, during Nehru's 'Hindi-Cheeni Bhai Bhai' era. The Chinese had constructed two roads for taking heavy load across Tibet to areas close to the so-called McMahon line. Simultaneously they surveyed the entire Aksai Chin.
In 1956, China constructed a road through Aksai Chin area from hills near Yarkand to Gartok. Johnson line had earlier shown this area as part of Kashmir, but India made no protest. In 1950, the Chinese rushed supplies through this very route to Western Tibet.
In 1958, China claimed Aksai Chin" as part of China. Later, India woke up from Rip Von Winkle's slumber and made a counter-claim to possession of Aksai Chin. The Indian claim was untenable under principles of international law, which favoured the party in prior occupation. India had no case as it had never surveyed the area or sent her patrols into that area. As such, India did not invoke jurisdiction of International Court of Justice.
China never accepted the Indian point of view that 'the McMahon line was legalised by Simla convention. As such, 'the boundary claimed by India both in the Western and the Eastern Sectors was based on geography, tradition as well as specific international agreement between India and China'. India however stuck to her schizophrenic contention on the boundary line in the eastern sector and her claim 'to territory between McMahon line and the foot-hills'. As for Aksai Chin, the Chinese maps published in 1958 showed this area as part of their territory.
Unlike the Indians, the Chinese are straightforward people. In talks with India, they promised to admit India’s suzerainty over Sikkim. And fulfilled this promise by amending their official maps. During his recent visit to India, the Chinese delegation showed amended maps to Indian diplomats.
Duplicity in India's foreign policy is the greatest obstruction to peaceful resolution of her disputes with her neighbours. She never tangibly objected to Chinese control of Tibet or construction of communication links in the area. Never invoked intervention by UNO on this matter. Yet, she sheltered Dalai Lama, and sent patrols into Chinese territory, leading to India-China War.
It is high time India says no to her childish behaviour, and behaves like an adult. How long will India cling to the Barbie doll of animosity towards her neighbours? It is not Chanakya's MandaI principle, but reason, which India should follow (Mandal doctrine states that ‘all neighbouring countries are actual or potential enemies’). India should not allow itself to be used as a pawn in the great powers’ game.