CHOICE BEFORE PAKISTAN
When a river hits a mountain, it changes its course and keeps flowing. But a short-sighted person tries to cut through the mountain to make a path—even if it risks ending his journey forever.
In Pakistan’s current situation, the real choice is not between democratic and military rule. The actual choice is between two options: either Pakistan finds a way out of the dead-end (impasse) where its progress has halted and begins to move forward again, or it remains stuck in that same dead-end—until it disappears from the global map of nations. Sometimes, in a nation’s life, there comes a moment when its progress stops. At that point, a bold decision is needed so the country can restart its journey in a steady and balanced manner. These kinds of delicate decisions often go against public opinion. That’s why such bold choices are usually made by people in military leadership.
A democratic leader cannot make such decisions because he comes to power through public votes. For this reason, it becomes nearly impossible for him to take any revolutionary step that doesn’t align with public sentiment. Here, I will present two examples of situations like this. One is from Muslim history, and the other is from Europe. In Muslim history, a well-known example is Salah ad-Din Yusuf (Joseph) ibn Ayyub (died 1193). He is widely praised for saving the Muslim world from the military invasions of the Crusaders. But how did Salahuddin gain the powerful leadership position that allowed him to play such a historic role? As is known, Salah ad-Din Ayyubi was a military officer under the Sultan of Egypt, Nur al-Din Zengi (1118-1174). After the Sultan’s death, even though his sons were alive, Salahuddin seized control of the government and took on the role of Sultan.
Muslim historians generally see Salahuddin’s takeover as justified. Although it might have appeared unconstitutional on the surface, it brought important political advantages. That move allowed Salahuddin to defend Islam and the Muslims in a strong way, which he later proved. The second example is Charles de Gaulle of France (died 1970). He was a general in the French army. Later, he took advantage of the situation and gained political power in France. Elected leaders, who come to power through public votes, cannot ignore public feelings when making bold decisions. But in some cases, saving a nation requires just that: a bold decision that opposes public opinion.
As is well known, France occupied several African countries, such as Algeria, and regarded them as provinces of France. This unrealistic policy proved to be so damaging that, after World War II, France became the “sick man of Europe” in the race for development. De Gaulle set aside national passions and approached the issue with a clear mind. He realized that the only solution was to unilaterally grant independence to France’s African colonies. Although this move was completely against the emotions of the French people, it was this unpopular decision that enabled France to become a major power in the modern race for development.
Pakistan’s current situation remains dire. Its undeclared war against India over Kashmir has caused such extensive damage that the country is nearing collapse. The world views it as the most unsafe country. International financial institutions are hesitant to invest in Pakistan. Civil unrest among the Pakistani people has created a situation akin to a civil war. The country’s religious, educational, and cultural institutions have become hubs of destructive activity. The most painful consequence of these issues is what is called brain drain.
Humans naturally want to advance in the race for progress. That’s why, for a country to develop, it’s enough that people can clearly see open opportunities to act. For example, the country should have peace and a strong infrastructure. People should feel that they are getting the full reward for their efforts. If such opportunities truly exist in a country, every individual will naturally become active, and the country will start progressing on its own.
Unfortunately, this has not happened in Pakistan. The idea of “first change the current state of affairs (status quo)” has led to a constant state of emergency. As a result, practical opportunities for individuals to work according to their abilities have almost disappeared. Because of this, many motivated and talented people have left Pakistan. During my visits to the United States, I asked many Pakistanis living there why they left their home country. Almost all of them gave the same answer: in America, there are opportunities to work—while in Pakistan, there are none.
Pakistan’s unrealistic policy on Kashmir has become a trap door, blocking the country’s progress. The fact is, Pakistan has fallen behind in today’s race for development. There is only one way to help the country catch up: instead of confronting problems directly, Pakistan should focus on maximizing available opportunities.
Given the current situation, Pakistani leaders should be willing to accept the existing state of affairs (status quo) in Kashmir. In other words, the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir should—after necessary adjustments—be recognized as the border between the two countries. The geographical and political status quo that has developed between Pakistan and India should be accepted, and the issue should be permanently resolved. Furthermore, such a bold and decisive step can only be taken by a non-democratic ruler.
It’s not possible for a democratic leader to make such a detached, unemotional decision. In my view, this historic role is meant for a leader like President Pervez Musharraf. Those who question his right to hold power can find an answer in the example of former military president Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. Earlier, General Zia-ul-Haq did the same thing—he seized control of Pakistan through a military coup and then declared himself President through a self-initiated process. At that time, everyone—from Pakistan’s religious groups to the U.S. State Department—accepted it, and it was justified under the “law of necessity.” That precedent is enough to justify accepting a military leader like President Pervez Musharraf in the same way. It is hypocritical when someone becomes practical where personal interest is involved but starts talking about ideals where personal interest is not at stake.
General Pervez Musharraf’s rise to power in Pakistan, and later taking the oath as president on June 20, 2001, may seem like an unconstitutional event. But in my view, it happened at exactly the right time. In the current situation, only a military leader like President Musharraf can make the bold decisions Pakistan needs. A democratic leader elected through the usual process would not be able to make such calm and rational decisions. The only solution to this problem is for Pakistan to move away from emotional policies and adopt a realistic approach.
Pakistan should reach an agreement with India on the Kashmir issue so that peace can be established in the country and national resources can be redirected toward development. For the past 55 years, Pakistani politics has focused on one issue: trying to change the political status quo in Kashmir. It has now become clear that this policy is harmful. It has never produced positive results—neither in the past nor now—and it won’t in the future either. Making such a bold and transformative decision is certainly difficult. But if Pakistan takes this step with courage, the results could be extraordinary.
The undeclared state of war with India would come to an end, replaced by peace. The negative attitude of the Pakistani people would shift to a positive one. Trade between the two nations would commence. There would be exchanges in education, culture, and tourism. Sharing literature would help reduce misunderstandings between the two countries, and a sense of brotherhood would develop.
India and Pakistan share a largely common language and culture. Yet, they remain distant neighbors. Afterwards, they would become close neighbors—as they truly are. The fact is, whenever a person or a nation wants to take action, there is always an existing situation shaped by earlier events. There are two ways of thinking in such circumstances. One is to first try to change the current situation so that action becomes possible. The other is to accept the current situation as it is and move forward in other possible areas. This second way, which I call positive status quoism, is the wiser path.
Every reasonable person agrees that when the ideal isn’t feasible, it’s better to accept what’s practical. This aligns with what Islam teaches. The Quran states: “Reconciliation is best” (4:128). In other words, in disputes, the most effective approach is to seek compromise—instead of engaging in conflict, choose peace.
The idea of accepting the status quo and building long-term relationships on that basis is not new. During Jawaharlal Nehru’s time, both governments reportedly agreed to this proposal. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah even traveled to Pakistan as a mediator between the two sides. However, Nehru’s sudden death prevented this historic plan from being carried out.
By 1956, Nehru had publicly proposed a settlement of Kashmir with Pakistan over the ceasefire line, now known as the LoC. On May 23, 1964, Nehru asked Sheikh Abdullah to meet Ayyub Khan in Rawalpindi in an attempt to resolve the Kashmir dispute. The Pakistani leader agreed to a summit with Nehru scheduled for June 1964. This message was urgently telegraphed to Nehru on May 26. However, just as Nehru’s consent reached Karachi, news arrived that Nehru had died in his sleep. With that, a major opportunity for a peaceful resolution of Kashmir was also lost. (Hindustan Times, June 18, 2001)
If Pakistan accepts the current status of Kashmir as a permanent arrangement, neither Pakistan nor, more broadly, the Muslim community would suffer any loss. Even if Kashmir remains separate from Pakistan, it will still be a Muslim-majority area. So, where is the real harm in that? Moreover, history shows that Muslims in the Indian subcontinent who stayed in India have progressed much more than those in Pakistan or Bangladesh. In fact, today, the wealthiest Muslim businessman—not only in the Indian subcontinent but in the entire Muslim world—is an Indian Muslim living in Bangalore.
Another point is that making peace with India is a significant challenge for Pakistan. It involves ending a long-standing conflict with a powerful neighbor. Resolving a dispute with one’s neighbor paves the way for various kinds of progress. The example of modern Japan clearly shows how ending a rivalry can lead to development. Before World War II, Japan and the United States were enemies. After the war, Japan fully reconciled with the U.S. As a result, Japan became an economic superpower on the global stage.
Pakistan’s current policy is harming the reputation of Islam. Due to this policy, Pakistan has used hostility toward India as a way to foster national unity. The result of this misguided approach is that the people of Pakistan—including those from what was once East Pakistan—were unable to unite under the banner of Islam, but they did become entirely united in their hostility toward India. This example has given the world reason to believe that Islam does not have the power to bring Muslims together. This idea was reflected in an article published in the Hindustan Times, an English-language newspaper in Delhi, on June 18, 2001. It said: “Islam could not unite Pakistan, but enmity with India did.”
“Islam does not hold Pakistan together anymore, but anti-Indianism does.”
A reconciliatory policy by Pakistan could promote a new, positive attitude among its people. As a result, Pakistanis might enter a new era—one where their national unity is based not on anti-India sentiments but on a genuine pro-Islam stance. This change is so significant that it could open the floodgates of God’s mercy on Pakistan, leaving no door of His blessings closed.
