Muhammad Ijaz,
In world politics, states faced traditional security threats over the borders by the neighboring
rivalry countries as well as regional and super powers in previous century. But these threats were
minimized due to un-tire able efforts of the world community on the platform of international politics
with the perspective of international organizations like UNO and ICJ and regional organizations like
SAARC, SCO, NAM, ARAB League and EU etc. In spite of all these, other major factor that was and also is
“the nuclear politics” along with the slogan of “Atoms for peace” with dual way. Historically due to
nuclear politics, since 1945, we can observe that the traditional security threats for nuclear countries
reduced even equal to none. During this whole time period, war history is deprived even from a single
example of a major war between two nuclear countries except Kargil war 1999 between India and
Pakistan. But contentions between rivalry countries remained constant and output was over there in the
form of different shape of threat known as non-traditional security threats and result of these threats
were the same as the earlier ones. This new shape of threats named as Proxy war in which state was
suffering through society and non-militarily mostly. During the cold war era, Proxy wars remained
dominant in bipolar politics where third countries remained victims of it initially like division of Korean
Peninsula through Korean society in the form of 38 th parallel line, USA-Vietnam war and Soviet-Afghan
war finally in Asia. To conclude the excellent result of proxy war was experienced at that time when
world politics changed from bipolar to unipolar politics. So this war methodology was also adopted by
unipolar politics even in 21 st century. After a careful study of its characteristics, political scientists told us
that two types of countries are involved in it. One of them are those who have a strong nationalism and
patriotism supported ideologically and have a strong bond of unity, such type of countries can become
designer of the proxy war like USA, Russia, Iran and KSA and second one are those who are weak with
the perspective of nationalistic and patriotic approach, such type of states become victim of proxy wars
such as Afghanistan, Maghreb countries in Africa, Yemen and Syria now a days.
Pakistan is a major country due to its geographic and geostrategic importance with the
perspective of regional as well as international politics. Almost five major regions (South Asia, Central
Asia, Middle East, China and Indian Ocean) of Asia are directly attached geographically with our beloved
state therefore we can’t isolate or detach ourselves from the Asian politics that leads to international
politics. Due to this reason, we have to study all the major international political events being student of
social science since our birth as a nation. In those events we were considered as a direct and indirect
part like Vietnam war, U-2 incident, China-USA handshake, Soviet-Afghan war, Middle East crisis and
9/11 incident finally. Due to this reason Pakistan remained significant politically, geographically and as a
front line state along with hidden facts in all these above mentioned incidents. So all these events,
adventures and politics have also counter effects and after-shocks over Pakistani society in different
way. Our society, government and state beard it in the form of non-traditional security threat because
traditional security threat for us like other nuclear states was zero. The most effected part of Pakistan is
Unity. Unity is a major ingredient of proxy war that is mostly concerned with our existence and directly
proportional to our stability. But unfortunately our rulers and political leadership gave a full fledge
chance regarding unity to the designer states of Proxy war. Our potentate introduced different types of
doctrines and ideologies to our people during their tenure but all were imported and unable to meet the
native social requirements. Therefore their doctrines and ideologies remained temporary and
overthrown by the Pakistani people along with them except the “Ideology of Pakistan” which was sole
indigenous doctrine and gave the solutions of the problems of Indian Muslims and finally got the target
of that doctrine. But unluckily due to early death of Quaid the second phase of “ideology of Pakistan”
became controversial into the hands of clergy. Most shocking and interesting as well that clergy class
was the same mostly which was opposed it on the base of religion before the independence and after
the independence they became champions to interpret it through religious glasses and still they (legacy
of that class) are going on. While rest of all doctrines after that like Ayub’s Capitalistic approach v/s
Communism, Bhutto’s Socialist doctrine that was wrapped with the slogan of “rotti, kapra and makan”,
Zia’s Islamization with the slogan of “Islam first” and last but not least was “liberal and secular Pakistan”
wrapped with the slogan of “Pakistan first” were imported and imposed by the rulers over us to achieve
the targets of personal, institutional and international interest. While in true sense no one was for the
social and national interest. Due to this reason, these imported doctrines mostly hit our unity because
each slogan divided us in the form of capitalist and communist during Ayub period. Ayub’s doctrine was
attractive for the colonial mindset and colonial social structure in the form of landlordism, feudalism,
industrialists, bureaucracy and even fiefdom also remained beneficiary of it while due to his thoughts
Ayub succeeded to suppress the emerging elements of communism and socialism. So society introduced
only with the capitalistic approach owned country like USA. Next one was Bhutto’s doctrine of socialism,
influenced by the Chinese approach that widened the gap between elite and poor class due to his land
reforms and nationalization of industries, banks and insurance companies. Again this one also like
predecessor’s doctrine fail to meet the native social requirements of society and still the slogan of it is
going to be misused for the personal interest of 2nd generation of Bhutto and poor man of our society is
failed to overthrow Bhutto’s charisma from his home (Her gher say Bhutto nekaly ga). Zia’s slogan gave
the gift of sectarianism to our society behind the strategy of Islamization and divided us in the form of
Shia and Sunni backed by regional politics of Iran and KSA respectively and finally Musharaf’s approach
unyoked us with the name of liberal and orthodox. Politically and religiously, Zia’s doctrine was more
lethal, fabricated and baleful for Pakistan’s unity. Because during his era, we were problematic with the
perspective of national political class versus regional political class, for example he promoted the
regional political parties to oppose and weak the PPP which was national political party after the
breakdown of 1971. As for example Sindh’s politics divided into rural and urban Sindh. In rural Sindh, he
supported to G.M.Syed who chanted the slogan “Sindhu Desh” later on under the flag of JASQM. While
in Urban Sindh, Altaf Hussain was gifted by Zia to the nation as a Muhajir card to spoiled the impact of
Bhutto’s charisma. That Zia’s gift is still problematic for our unity as well for our peace. Thanks to Altaf
Hussain through whom Muhajir identity is still working even in fourth generation, they can’t become
Pakistani at Karachi and Hyderabad. In Punjab, another Zia’s gift to our democracy was Nawaz Sharif
who chanted the slogan during the 1990s “Jag Punjabi Jag teri Pug noo legg gia dagh” along with zia’s
legacy of islamization that was going to imposed by him. In KPK (NWFP), ANP and in Baluchistan, Baluch
national parties were strengthened due to the blessings of Zia. In this way, military dictator designed his
political engineering in the state just for the sake of his interest while nation and state was going to
deprived the national political class. Even this political engineering observed till 2018, where every
province was patronaged by regional political parties and national consensus was far away in the
corridor of power.
After Zia, another military dictator with another doctrine introduced on the name of “liberal and
secular Pakistan” wrapped up with the slogan of “Pakistan first” that was opposite to previous dictator’s
doctrine of “Islam first”. Interestingly this doctrine reinterpreted the Jihad concept through the
wordings of super power that is called “terrorism”. Even the responsibility of this interpretation was
acknowledged by the foreign secretary of USA (Hilary Colinton) and we were ready to implement this
time too. The result of this doctrine was also same as the previous one but more horrible because now
clergy and illiterate people were not victim of it while it was going to influence literate people even our
universities and colleges with the differentiation of liberal and orthodox attitude. For example our
private and public institutes of higher studies became victim of Musharaf’s doctrine in the form of liberal
and orthodox institute such as LUMS, Quaid e Azam Unitveristy, G.C.U Lahore, F.C.C.U Lahore and BNU
etc considered as liberal institutes while P.U, BZU, and K.U have a stamp of orthodox and conservative
that leads to further division of their products in society. Both these slogans of “Islam first” and
“Pakistan first” divided our society into sectarianism and liberal and orthodox minds which were helpful
for our rivalry country in the form of Proxy war.
This historic division of Pakistani nation since our birth through our ruler’s imported and self-
centered doctrines have made us as a favorite society for non-traditional security threats especially
proxy war of India that is not less dangerous as compared to traditional security threat because result of
these both threats are the same. Social division in Pakistan started since 1950’s when we divided
ourselves into Muslims and non-Muslims perceptions, while in 1960’s we differentiated in the form of
capitalistic and communistic approach, in 1970’s Bhutto helped us to create hated views between rich
and poor and in 1980’s we apart as a shia and sunni from one another. Final blow was done by
Musharaf, to give us his imported and pre-planned sub-division in which each shia and sunni further
subdivided as a liberal or orthodox shia or sunni.
Now come to the solution of this problem of disunity is that our rulers should and must design
such type of policies where we can handle these non-traditional security threat especially the problem
of unity and strong nationalism through solid, powerful and superior doctrine. That doctrine should
motivate us permanently. Along with this, national political leadership should take such type of steps
through which the sense of deprivation at each platform should be compromised on equal footings,
prestige and treatment to the less developed areas of the country. We should focus over FATA, southern
Punjab, Baluchistan and northern areas of Pakistan to compensate their problems through substitute
development with clear priority list so that we can close all the loopholes of non-traditional security
threat for our rivalry regional and international politics. In order to minimize the non-traditional security
threat, we should make sure that we have to secure our nation through good governance, strong
economy along with powerful military strength.
(The author is PhD scholar & CSS Mentor and Faculty member of F.C University, can be contacted;
[email protected])