Why must Benazir Internationalise Internal Issue?

The overriding concern, seemingly, is to reduce civilizational conflict and to stress the need for a new channel of communication between the leaders of these nations to prevent the demonising of civilizations, calling for the creation of a new international body to manage delicate security issues, combat terrorism, increase cooperation and reduce suspicion between the western and Islamic states.

Implicit in the above contention is a tacit endorsement of Sammuel Huntington' notorious Clash of Civilization thesis which has overwhelmingly been repudiated by the world scholars. It is essentially a sinister idea targeted to breeding conflict rather than to banishing it. Huntington defines civilizations as the highest cultural grouping and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species, and identifies seven or eight major civilizations today: Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic, Orthodox, Latin American, possibly the African, stating that fault lines between civilizations are replacing the political and ideological boundaries of the cold war as the flash points for crisis and bloodshed. He visualises conflicts on cultural lines of demarcation between western christianity and orthodox christianity in Europe and between the latter and Islam. The defining feature of an evolving world order is simplistically portrayed, as if two civilizational boxers-Islam and the West are pitted against each other in the international geo-political arena.

Huntington had to face virulent criticism and was compelled to write a rejoinder. The Economist came out with a very severe punch: it is striking that the new wave of self-awareness in the Muslim world has not produced any serious move towards a merger of Muslim states, that in the orthodox Christian part of the world, another arguably distinct culture zone, the recent tendency has been for things to fall apart, not come together, and that only in western Europe is there any seriously conceived plan to dissolve existing nation-states into something bigger - and even this European experiment may now be running into the sands. None of this would suggest that the world is heading for that fearful sounding clash of civilizations, but rather the global alignments would continue to be determined by the play of interests among nation states whatever civilization (Quoted from Harkavy, Orbis Vol 41, Number 4 fall 1997).

It is intended to highlight that Benazir's justification for the summit based on the Huntington's notion essentially tantamounts to whipping a dead horse. Recent global events bear ample testimony to the fact that USA - the unipolar power has not integrated civilizational conflict into a strategic doctrine. On the contrary, bridging historical antipathies-ideological racial or civilizational, seems to be the basic attitudinal shift. Constructs like confrontation and containment are cold-war vestiges and rather anachronistic in the present transformatory world order, yet to determine its true contours. China, both an ideological grounds, as a cold war rival second only to the former Soviet Union, and as a civilizational foe, as per Confucian-enemy-image (Huntington's version), enjoys the most favoured nation status in terms of trade with USA. Notwithstanding some residual ambivalence, as cold war legacy, the ties of cooperation have shown incremental increase. Iran, despite being dubbed a rogue state - fundamentalist in the derogatory sense - is not being perceived in that negative image, and that there is a marked dilution in the lingering historical prejudice, eversince the Shah of Iran - USA's strategic surrogate in the region - was dethroned from power.

The recently concluded Peace Accord between PLA and Israel - the arch rivals - midwifed by President Clinton through dexterous diplomacy, is a case in point. There may be reservations with respect to the implementations of the Accord, and the extremists on both sides may dub it a sell-out, but the patent fact remains that USA conscious of the imperative of peace and cooperation has made sincere efforts to reduce conflict rather than accentuate it. It is a demand of the geo-economics as an alternative paradigm to geo-politics, which has hitherto scuffled the prospect of inter-existence in the global community and adherence to a humanistic order. The world has to move towards integration - a construct now being favoured by USA, which is gaining greater currency in the context of nations gravitating in regional economic groupings and the dynamics of globalization, with its attendant commitments to privatization and free-market economy. The issue which requires urgently to be deliberated up is to restructure global financial system, perhaps, even to create a new Brethon woods to bring the privileged and under-privileged nations - the North and the South - into a constant partnership and dialogue with each other. This partnership and understanding is necessary to get out of the financial catastrophe caused due to unbridled lust of the speculators - the Soros Syndrome - who have transformed east Asia, practically as a currency casino. International speculator, as aptly commented by someone is a bit like a poker game in which the gambler with the deepest pockets is virtually certain to win. How to circumvent the pernicious trends and channelize globalization for the greater good of humanity, is the real issue to address, if at all a world summit has to be convened.

The most pressing issue is the appalling poverty in the world. It is indeed a great irony that the majority of the world population (75%) consumes only sixteen percent of the global income, whereas the richest and the most affluent nations consume nearly 86% of the world services and goods. Unless Fundamental Economic Rights as contained in the UN Charter are fulfilled the world shall never see peace and stability.

Marginalised people are prone to assert themselves through some sort of anchoring values based on religion, race or ethnic identities. These are essentially politics of recognition. Islam vs west is actually a contrived issue. Islam is no stranger to the west. They have co-existed for much too long. The western scholars, have analysed in depth the variations in Islamic polities. They see that it is not a monolithic force and that it pose no challenge to the West, in any conceivable sense. Extremism, is not an attribute of any single religion, faith or ideology. Even in the United States there has always been a category of people - Berry GoldWater. John Foster Dulles, and others, who adhere to a very conservative and radical point of view. There is Vladimir Zhirinovsky in Russia and Advani in India and practically every society has that breed. Pakistan is no exception. Ethnic or religious identities are neither absolute nor immutable, nor inherently destructive. We have seen how in Iran, the so-called Fundamentalistic upsurge in the wake of the revolution, under the present leadership has gradually transformed into a more moderate and a relatively liberal social order - opening up to the West. Moderation is the essence of life and societies do seek equilibrium.

What is strikingly shocking that Benazir has not projected the right image of Pakistan, and the message to the world leaders, is exceedingly distorted. She contends that the current efforts to build democratic and moderate Islamic societies would witness a setback if nothing was done to counter negative actions and impression. Most recently in Pakistan, she said we are confronted with a regime intent on installing a dangerous brand of dictatorship, clocked in religious garb. Other Muslim nations are also feeling the peril of growing militancy of extremist groups. As an opposition leader, and indeed of a great standing, she has every right to voice criticism against the government in power, but to write letter to the world leaders about the internal state of affairs in the country, certainly hurts our national pride. Soliciting international interventions and pressures, practically boils down to bartering of our sovereignty. What justification would then be left to call our country independent?

Benazir is no new comer to politics. She is a leader of Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), which has its roots in all the provinces of the country. She has struggled for the restoration of democracy and her father, late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was indeed a leader of great vision. One is sure that she must be conscious of the reality that Pakistan movement was steered by those political stalwarts who were not sold to obscurantist and radical view of Islam. They were middle-of-the roaders and interpreted Islam in light of modern imperatives.

But to dub them secularists as it is understood in the contemporary political parlance, would equally be erroneous. Between black and white there are various shades of gray. Quaid-i-Azam on the occasion of the opening ceremony of the State Bank of Pakistan on 1st July 1948 had advised:

We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concepts of equality of man and social justice.

In the Hindu polity, a Shudra, no matter how much he tried, could never become equal to a Brahmin. The founding of a politically free society was the basic force behind the creation of Pakistan. It is a patent reality that the large majority of Muslims, both in the undivided India, as well as after the establishment of Pakistan have always expressed their political choices in favour of enlightened version of Islam. The folk wisdom has always expressed its pragmatic insight. In Pakistan, the vote bank of the extremist Islamic parties is practically negligible. However, they have a functional role to play as a pressure group, so that liberalism does not lend itself to a licentious existence, and to keep reminding the society of the religious and moral imperatives.

The Shariat Bill is not being imposed upon the nation. It is through a democratic process that attempts are being made to attain consensus on the issue. It is yet to get passed through the Senate. The opposition leader has every right to block it there, but to appeal to the world dignitaries on this issue is an aberration of democracy. People of Pakistan are the real arbiters. Emerson rightly said: Democracy is based upon the conviction that there are extraordinary possibilities in ordinary people.