The consequences of 26/11 By Dr. Ghayur Ayub

A strong economy and political stability are the major catalysts to boost the progress of a country. China is a glaring example. I remember reading an article in Life Magazine in the mid 1960s which predicted China surpassing America and the Soviet Union as a world power in the coming 30 years. The scribe linked his opinion to the economic growth and political stability of China. 40 years later, we see the results. The reason? China followed the saying of Sun Tzu, "˜It is best to win without fighting'. Economically, it is the most powerful country in the world with foreign exchange reserves of staggering 3 trillion US Dollars. How interesting it is to see the champion of capitalistic economy - the US, is knocking at the door of Communist China to bail them out of the present economic crunch. A few years ago no one would have believed this could happen. The Soviet Union, despite being a major superpower with unconquerable military force crumbled because of a declining economy and deteriorating political stability.

India, in recent years, has progressed tremendously in economic growth while maintaining political stability in the most awkward and difficult situations. Today, it is ranked among the most powerful nations in Asia second to China. Pakistan, on other hand, is the most unstable country with economy going down the drain and stability in shatters. To avoid becoming a default state, it had to approach the IMF for a bailout package.

In the event of a war, Pakistan would need a few more intra venous drips from donors and they would oblige us provided we keep on carrying the bowl and follow American policy on the war on terror. India is another ball game. It has too much at stake. Even a short conventional war could send India back twenty years. This would mean India's dream of becoming a regional superpower and getting a permanent seat on UNSC would come crashing down

For Pakistan there are other consequences; the major being the premature death of democracy. After the war, the government of PPP will fall and will not be replaced through a normal democratic process. Unfortunately for democracy, Pakistan has always progressed well under army rule. It was in 1964 under General Ayub's rule when South Korea sent a team to find out how to improve their country economically following Pakistan's model. It was the same story of economic success during Zia's and Musharaf's tenures. Without going into the reasons as to why civilian governments were not given a chance to complete their tenures; it has been established that political instability and a poor economy caused their downfalls. The present democratic process which started a year ago does not provide a rosy picture either. Bad governance, corruption at the highest levels, lawlessness, price hikes, unemployment, nepotism and increasing poverty remind us of the previous PPP governments. People seem to be disenchanted with democracy and a war would be the final nail in the coffin.

The terror attack in Mombai brought the distant drums of war to the Indian streets and the emotional public has started dancing to the war tunes ignited by the uncontrolled media and jerky government. Up until now, India has been playing a clever role keeping a dozen or so home-grown independent movements under the rug while keeping its independent policy intact. One of the major issues pinching India politically, militarily and economically was Kashmir. It is this issue coupled with mass hysteria generated by the war on terror following the attacks of 26/11 which might lead to unexpected turns. For example;

1.       During Musharaf's regime the Kashmir issue was put on the back burner. Asif Ali Zardari went one step further by announcing the freedom fighters in Kashmir are terrorists and called India a "˜friendly country'. Contrary to this statement, Barak Obama called Kashmir the main burning issue to the dismay of many Indians.

2.       Up until now, the separatist movements, which India labelled terrorism, were an internal matter. It never sought external help despite having strong upsurges in Kashmir and a few North Eastern States. Thanks to the late Benazir Bhutto and Aitezaz Ehsan (as reported by the print media) Khalistan movement was truncated before it flourished. The incident of 26/11 might suck India into the "˜war on terror' which is exclusively defined by the US and fought on their terms. In other words, soon, the war on terror may be not an internal matter for India any more. Pakistan knows the consequences of such a war.

If the planners of 26/11 were trying to shift the Kashmir issue and replace it with the international war on terrorism; they might have got it wrong. With the change of leadership from Neo Con to Democrats in the White House, the political gurus expect the new regime revisiting the term "˜terrorism'. So far, Americans failed to achieve their objectives with this term.  How India is going to achieve its objectives remains to be seen.

There are other possible consequences; some negative some positive, of 26/11 for India.

1.       The rightist Hindus will take advantage of the incident and will try to dominate future Indian politics; thus changing the image of India from a docile society to a radical one.

2.       It might cost the Congress Party the next elections. The only way the present government can avert that happening will be to have surgical strikes in Azad Kashmir. This would have disastrous results. Even a limited conventional war between the two countries will dry out foreign investments in India at a very crucial time of development. Also, there is a greater danger of changing a conventional war to nuclear war with unimaginable costs. This is despite of Asif Ali Zardari's promise not to initiate a nuclear war. In the last few months we have seen AAZ making U-turns on his promises.

3.       The turmoil could trigger off rebellions in those states which are struggling for independence. India, so far, has been able to keep a lid on them. Not anymore.

4.       Against these negative points, there are some positive points provided India shows some restraint. For example, India could use it as powerful tool to push Barak Obama to support India becoming a permanent member at UNSC. Secondly, in the present declining global economy India would be able to get substantial financial benefits. Thirdly, if Barak Obama wanted (as he promised) to settle the Kashmir issue, it would be more favourable to India than to Pakistan.

The Indian war mongers should think twice before flaring the emotions of the public. They should know the only way they could save India from disintegration will be to stick to economic growth and political stability. If it enhanced (by not fighting) the growth rate; who knows in next 40-50 years it could surpass the present world powers economically as China did according to the prediction by Life Magazine in the 1960s. Like China, India should concentrate on economic growth and political stability and these two do not figure in war.

The end