Halt, who is sneaking in?

One can be accused of straining at the gnat after swallowing the camel. The FBI is all over the place. Each Pakistani while leaving Pakistan or coming back is photographed and the fact recorded -- where? In FBI's database, of course. Pakistanis are under watch just as Americans' communications with outsiders are under microscope, collated and analysed by super computers. George Orwell's Big Brother is here -- in the US and Pakistan.

NATO has reminded Pakistanis of their duties in, and vis-à-vis, Afghanistan. The Polish Vice Foreign Minister, Witold Waszezykowski, had informed of the large role that the 'expanded NATO' has in fighting terrorism. Logically it would be hard to restrict this role to Asia or anywhere. Capabilities of NATO and the US would be the only limiting factor, if indeed there are any limits to them. Well, Pakistan is in it. The first priority is to record one's own dissent from accepting such a role.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The issue must be discussed on merits, although being post factum, it would be futile. What is being fought against is an ideology and political conduct (terrorism). The Polish official graciously conceded that military option should be the last; other options come first. But NATO being NATO, its role is strictly military and NATO is not concerned with political or ideological remedies. What is being witnessed is the spectacle of strongest military powers proclaiming their resolve to fight Islamic extremism. That it dangerously looks like a new version of Medieval Crusades goes without saying. How can Bush administration and NATO hide the fact that they are only fighting terrorism by Islamicists? They must have chosen the best means of achieving victory over them. Rulers of Pakistan have to answer a question: have you thought through what you were getting into and what will Pakistan get out of it?

The problem has also a domestic dimension. The rise of Taliban in the two Waziristans, Balochistan and other areas of NWFP is a fact of life. There are supporters of al-Qaeda and other Islamic movements aiming at, in differing versions, forming a uniquely Islamic dispensation in, and of, Muslim countries. Some call for a worldwide Caliphate.

This is certainly a problem that Pakistan has to face and face courageously. By courage one does not imply being trigger happy. What is intended is free rational and democratic debate: No one's ideas are, ab initio or per se, to be assumed good or bad. Pakistanis have to rationally decide whether they want a Caliphate in Pakistan? A sort of uniformed Caliphate is already in place. Which is not vastly different from Mulla Omar's Caliphate in Afghanistan: In both cases the decision-making on important matters is, and was, by one man. Only, President Musharraf does not pretend to be the religious head of the country or even of Muslims. But he regards himself as the Sipah-e-Salar of an Islamic Army.

Don't forget, calling anything Islamic does not make it sacred or divine. A Caliphate too will be the result of political struggles by some politicians; it can only be a human construct, liable to be faulty. Look around. Reality underneath Afghanistan Caliphate was a one-man dictatorship, assisted by an extremist and intolerant party, with mind-sets steeped in ancient Afghan prejudices masquerading as Islamic. What happened in Sudan was a controversial mullah-general dictatorship. In Iran a clerics' group rules, keeping commoners out and some Mullahs suppressed. Caliphate can only be a dictatorship of this or that Maulvi or a Zia-like General.

The discussion should centre around whether Pakistanis will be better off in a simple democratic dispensation, devoting energies to improving material living conditions of common people, or in organising a personal dictatorship of some pious-seeming Muslim (male) whose abilities may not include a grasp on world affairs, economic matters or a deference to democratic values. This debate has to be organised argumentation and if the majority of Pakistanis do opt for a Caliphate by an MMA leader, so be it, though one would disapprove.

But consider the role US required Pakistan to play in Afghanistan, and by extension in most of the regions around, as a non-NATO ad hoc ally. Being a non-NATO ally means that while Pakistan will strive to achieve US security objectives, the US will have no reciprocal obligations. It means Pakistan implementing the American and NATO designs. What are these designs? Superficially, it is fighting terrorism, held up as an international threat to western capitalist democracies. But it will help promote what America calls democracy. But considering the American conduct in areas around Afghanistan, Iraq or what the US may do vis-à-vis Iran, it would not so much be tackling terrorism as promoting American strategic interests.

America is not an obscure phenomenon. The American system is quite open and everything is discussed there -- to its credit. The Neo-Conservatives have moulded American thought to such an extent that it is hard to see whether a succeeding Democrat President would be able to seriously depart from their script. A Democrat President may emphasise a few social problems of the American society while a Republican one would still strive to make this an American Century. On security matters both parties tend to share the same overarching thinking -- the difference between them on security matters is one of tweeddledum and tweeddledee.

But one remark can be made off the cuff regarding general American thinking on fighting terrorism. Their actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have hitherto proved that the American cure is worse than the disease; so far they have caused more recruits offering themselves to terrorist outfits than before the American exertions, including those in Pakistan.

To repeat, what does Pakistan government expect from becoming foot soldier for the American cause? True, the regime fervently believes in the American cause; it is convinced that without American aid and support Pakistan can not be run; Pakistan economy requires constant aid from IFIs for which Americans support is necessary. Even day-to-day running of the state requires American support and aid. That seems to be the reason why Islamabad prefers being foot soldiers of America. But is there no other option for Pakistan?

Can the 152 million Pakistanis not freely decide to rebuild the country themselves in a self-reliant way into a place where the people's interests are supreme and where the hitherto supreme elites can be sidelined, left to enjoy their leisure and money. Only, they should be driven out of the decision-making positions. Aren't there people who favour such ideas?

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.