It was after World War II that the era of decolonization began. But following on its heels came the era of recolonization of the newly independent states. This did not involve invasion and takeover by armies, but subversion and enslavement by economic warfare.
Among states thus taken over, some were extremely obliging and provided to the colonizing state, their own manpower to subvert themselves, by hollowing out their treasuries and investing abroad.
Pakistan was one such state. And leading the charge against it were its own elites.
It was when the Zardari-Benazir combo first burst upon our political scene, that clandestine theft made way for daylight robbery. “Aur phir karavan chalta raha aur log milte gaye!” And then we reached the point where anybody who was anyone, became an inexorable part of the war on Pakistan.
To some of us it became increasingly clear that our country was capable enough of beating back an invading army, but it was daily surrendering a part of itself to the enemy within. And if a stop were not put to this, implosion would have to be our logical and necessary fate. And so, it is here we quivering stand today. A country with its treasury hollowed out cannot battle an enemy army attacking across its borders, nor can it battle instability within. People who take the state to this stage are not just guilty of theft. They are guilty of treachery against the state. Period.
The decisive acceleration pushing us to the abyss was signaled by Musharraf’s NRO. This legitimized all manner of theft, and was the ultimate incentive to those hesitating at the margins to stand up and be counted among the thieves, and to join the free for all.
And how manfully they responded to this invitation! Leaving behind their timidness they came in droves and gouged out crores.
Well before we reached our present pass I began wondering how the army, who were guardians of national security, really defined national security.
I began putting this question to some of the generals. Most of these were cadets when I was an instructor in our Military Academy. I began asking if our national security architecture provided for a defense against the most lethal and pernicious attack against our country. A silent attack launched not across our borders, but one launched by the enemies of the state residing within the state. An attack launched by the elites, the very leadership of the state against its very heart, while its army divisions stood armed and ready facing the enemy across the borders; divisions which would be driven to surrender without firing a shot, when the heart gave out!
And I wondered if the army had taken the trouble of devoting even one study period to the vitally important topic of staving off industrial scale theft of national assets in order to save the state!
I NEVER GOT AN ANSWER.
And so, the question still remains: if an institution, whose only reason for existence was the guardianship of national security, had no mechanism in place to prevent the most probable and lethal attack on the state, what remained the reason for the existence of such an institution?
This is the fundamental question that needs to be debated among the highest reaches of our high command; and after this is first resolved, debates on grand strategy and tactics and weaponry and right hooks and the left ones can follow. Unless the question of a defense against the most likely assault against the state, which will take down the state itself, is first addressed, all the rest have no meaning.