FOR five weeks, day after day, Pakistanis have been tearing their hearts out complaining that the world has turned a deaf ear to India’s ‘forcible annexation’ of Kashmir. They were shocked when some of Pakistan’s closest allies — including the United Arab Emirates and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia — appeared to either side with India or stay silent. When PM Khan invited the foreign ministers of KSA and UAE to “explain Pakistan’s position”, many hoped that things would be reversed. So what happened?
Not much, it seems. The foreign ministers met with PM Khan and COAS Bajwa in Islamabad on Wednesday. Thereafter FM Qureshi is reported to have said, “We are hopeful that [both countries] will not disappoint us. The ministers of both countries have listened to our stance”.
There could not have been a blander statement. No one expected much, but for all three countries it was a good photo-op: Pakistan could claim it had succeeded in engaging KSA and UAE in its promised diplomatic offensive. In turn, without offending India, these two Arab states could be seen as relevant to the region. But this visit will not calm the storm of indignation in Pakistan’s media — unless the media’s minders put the brakes on.
What explains the KSA/UAE tilt towards India? In TV talk shows and from columnists one hears that ours is a dog-eat-dog world where countries care only about markets and trade, not moral imperatives. No one cares about the poor. This explanation is partly, but not wholly, true.
From the KSA/UAE perspective, Pakistan is indeed a supplicant for periodic bailouts. Last year it received over $6 billion from each. Saudis lump Pakistanis with other ‘miskeen’ (needy) people from countries like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Philippines, etc. The term ‘rafiq’ (dear friend), says columnist Khaled Ahmad, is reserved by Saudis only for white expats from Europe and America. Indians presently do not qualify as rafiqs, but KSA might someday consider a relook.
KSA and UAE cannot call for self-determination in Kashmir for fear of consequences at home.
India’s growing economic clout, the sophistication of its workforce, and KSA-India cooperation in counterterrorism and military matters resulted in Pakistan’s de-hyphenation from India more than a decade ago. In 2016, the Saudi king personally conferred upon Narendra Modi the King Abdulaziz Sash (KSA’s highest civilian award). Earlier recipients include Shinzo Abe, David Cameron, Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. The list does not have any Pakistani leader.
Also read: Why using ‘terrorism’ as pretext for communication blockade in Kashmir isn’t right
Most recently, just after Kashmir went into lockdown, Crown Prince MBS vowed to invest $100bn in India by 2021. Earlier this year he had promised to invest $20bn in Pakistan. The differential recognises the different sizes of the two economies. The latest available figures show Pak-Saudi trade in 2017-2018 at $7.5bn while India-Saudi trade in the same year was $27.5bn. Remittances from Pakistani workers in 2018 from KSA were $4.9bn; that from Indian workers were $12.2bn.
UAE showed even less concern than KSA by rubbing salt into Pakistan’s wounds. UAE’s ambassador to India, Ahmad Al Banna, defended India’s action as an internal administrative matter and a “step towards further stability and peace”. Then, on Aug 24, UAE awarded Narendra Modi its highest civilian honour, the Order of Zayed. This made Senate Chairman Sadiq Sanjrani cancel his scheduled visit to UAE.
It’s not just because of India; here’s why it is unlikely that KSA and UAE would ever support Pakistan on Kashmir. KSA is a monarchy run by the House of Saud while UAE is an autocracy run by sheikhs from different Emirati tribes. One becomes a ruler in KSA/UAE because of rank at birth, not by election or competence or any other virtue. Therefore, people cannot be allowed to express their will, advocating democracy is a punishable crime, and dissent is quashed well before it can reach the streets.
Also read: Tweets, tantrums, half-truths – Pakistan minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi’s strategy for Kashmir
Can you imagine the consequences if KSA and UAE were to advocate the democratic rights of Kashmiris? The very next question would be: what about elections and democracy at home? KSA’s foreign minister was therefore as likely to demand democracy or plebiscite in Kashmir as he was to revealing the whereabouts of Jamal Khashoggi’s remnants.
The ill-fated Arab Spring briefly threatened regional monarchies and dictatorships but withered away long ago. As noted above, the man who helped to crush it in Egypt, General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, is also a recipient of the Saudi Sash — alongside Modi. All Gulf countries remain fearful of street demonstrations in any shape or form. Protests for Kashmir in Bahrain after Eid prayers led to several arrests.
We must not conclude from this that KSA is uninterested in Kashmir. There appears to be a new kind of religious proxy war in the making. KSA and Iran wish to foist their respective brands of Islam onto Kashmiris; funds for mosques and madressahs and preachers from these countries are going there.
In supporting Kashmiris, national interests everywhere take primacy over all else. The recent strong rebuke to India from Iran’s Supreme Leader was presumably to bolster Iran’s standing with Kashmiri Shias — roughly 15 per cent of the population — although it could also have been an expression of displeasure at India’s de facto acquiescence to US-led sanctions on Iran.
Lest we be unjustly harsh on countries hesitating to denounce India’s actions, let us admit that Pakistan too compromises frequently on essential principles. Look at the facts: to preserve CPEC it cannot speak about the forced dispatch of Uighur Muslims to re-education camps; for fear of angering Saudis and Emiratis it dare not speak of the death and destruction taking place in Yemen; and out of greed for military and civil aid it has served America’s interests for many decades.
Will more energetic diplomacy bring dividends to Pakistan? So far nothing supports this. Of course, things could change if violence explodes in Kashmir after the withdrawal of extra Indian troops, or if war seems to be around the corner. Even then, no one expects much from Muslim countries. “The bubble of an Islamic ummah has burst,” said former Senate chairman Raza Rabbani during a discussion on Kashmir in the Senate last week. True enough, but why did it take Pakistan so long to figure that out?
Also read: Why Pakistan is changing its tune on Kashmir
The writer teaches physics in Lahore and Islamabad.
This article was published in Dawn, September 7th, 2019
1. It is indeed amusing to find that Pakistan continues its efforts to internationalize the Kashmir issue. It is a different matter that it won’t succeed, reasons for which are well explained in this news story. 2. India has just to do one thing: expose Pakistan’s funding of terror outfits like LeT, JuD & JeM. 2. Is it not true that even Islamic countries have now realized recognized real face of the Pakistani establishment as regards Kashmir’s autonomy? They know that Pakistan has been in war with India in a way as it has all along funded and protected above terror outfits. 3. In this context let us not overlook a simple but basic fact: not one government in Pakistan, irrespective of party in power, can survive without adopting anti-India position. 4. Incidental observations: (a) Pakistan has been almost compelled to declare Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) chief Masood Azhar and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) founder Hafiz Muhammad Saeed as terrorists. But whether declaring the two heads of terror outfits will result in stern measures against their outfits would be soon clear. (b) The entire democratic world is aware of Pakistani establishment’s active assistance to these two and other terror outfits which operate from its soil or from Pak-occupied Kashmir. (c) I think this latest action against heads of JeM and LeT is just to ensure that member countries of Financial Actions Task Force or FATF would persuade FATF not to blacklist Pakistan. However, Pakistan is neither honest nor sincere in taking stern measures against terror outfits like JuD, LeT, JeM, etc. It has been proved again and again that Pakistan’s Intelligence wing, ISI, provides assistance to terror outfits and this information is now available with all member countries of FATF. (d) From India’s point of view, India has nothing to gain if Pakistan is blacklisted by FATF; but fact of Pakistan’s involvement in, and abatement of, activities of terror groups will just be underscored.
I would really like to appreciate Mr. Hoodhboy the way this article has been put up, it was just and complete in its own sense. People today don’t care about religion, cast, creed until and unless your pocket is full of jackpots, u can straight forwardly see the glow of gold in their greedy eyes
Ummah chuma de de…????
Pervez Hoodbhoy should have advised Pakistan to annex POK as its sovereign territory so that at least it can keep it as its spoils for ‘Kashmir Banega Pakistan’ lest India demands it back and treacherous Kashmiris can do a U turn to India, given that Valley is likely to do well economically in near future. UAE has clearly outlined Ummah position that Kashmir is a bilateral issue between two countries and should be sorted by talks. Pakistan should now understand its standing and act wisely before USA and Russia may find it in their interest to support that Indian border touch Afghanistan through Baltistan and Gilgit.
This will be an alibi to stop China in its CPEC tracks at the source from the northern side.
Umma ne nahi diya chumma!