Pakistan’s New Foreign Policy Challenges

    

Presently, mainstay of Pakistan’s foreign policy is completion of C-Pak Economic Corridor and thereafter successful running its operations to reap its economic benefits to the fullest. As we have already seen through many related articles on this blog, C-Pak Corridor is not only an economic enterprise, it is going to change regional political and defense scenario. Consequently Pakistan’s foreign policy related challenges are also related to regional political, economic and defense strategies adopted by various regional and international players.

The most important player is the USA. The USA’s first policy option was to install and strengthen a secular pro-USA regime- like the present Afghanistan’s regime- in Afghanistan through which USA might secure its vital regional interests, like keeping away the regional Muslim countries away from the likely emerging economic, political, and defense regional block under China’s umbrella. The C-Pak Economic Corridor is actually a vanguard to establish such regional political and defense block consisting China, Pakistan, Iran, central Asia, and possibly Russia and Western Asia later on. Having failed in its first policy option, the USA’s second policy option is to support such a so called Islamic regime in Afghanistan which might protect the USA’s regional interests, by keeping Afghanistan away from China’s circle of influence; that is why we see USA’s efforts to forge an alliance between Afghan Taliban and Afghan regime by including Taliban in the present Afghan regime set up. But Taliban, coming closer to China and involving China in Afghan talks, foiled USA’s second policy option to keep Afghanistan away from China. Resultantly the USA disrupted peace dialogue between Afghan Taliban and Afghan regime, first time, by disclosing the news of death of Mulla Omar, and, second time, by killing Mulla Akhtar Mansoor in a Drone attack. Presently, USA’s policy is to let Afghanistan plunge in turmoil because anarchic Afghanistan which is located in the heart of likely regional economic, political and defense block, would be a real hurdle in the way of establishment of such a block. (for details plz see http://secondriseofislam.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-usas-second-policy-option-in_4.html). 

Iran is another important regional player which may impact scope of likely regional block, by including or not including in the prospective regional block. Iran, being isolated among the Muslim world due to its sectarian policies, is desperately looking for economic and political friends to strengthen its security. Iran has important stakes in Afghanistan and cannot afford a hostile regime in Afghanistan under Taliban. After economic sanctions are lifted, Iran was left, and still left, with two options; Iran might become a part of C-Pak Economic Corridor, OR, Iran may join USA block to oppose this Economic Corridor Project. Iran knows that prospective regional block cannot be fully integrated without stability in Afghanistan. There are two ways to get stability in Afghanistan; either Taliban and present Afghan regime get together in alliance to form a broad based government in Afghanistan OR, any one of the two groups is powerful enough to topple down the other group from the position of power. Iran, instead of joining C-Pak Project and working for broad based Afghan government fully netted with C-Pak, has unfortunately opted for  strengthening present Afghan regime at the cost of Taliban and C-Pak. As the present Afghan regime, despite Iran’s and USA’s support, cannot be powerful enough to crush Taliban, Iran’s present policy in Afghanistan can yield no better results than that of USA’s- i.e. continued civil war in Afghanistan.

Iran is also collaborating with India to strengthen present Afghan regime, and constructing Chah-bahar Port as a competitor of Gawadar Port i.e. a project to vanguard project of C-Pak Economic Corridor. India is openly opposing C-Pak and Iran is in open collaboration with India for the purpose. India’s opposition to C-Pak is understandable; India is hostile state to Pakistan and cannot tolerate a Pakistan occupying a central position at regional political stage due to successful C-Pak project. But Iran’s opposition to C-Pak cannot be called  a wise decision; because Iran may also be beneficiary of C-Pak through Gawadar Port. Iran may develop Chah Bahar Port but, for that purpose, it is not necessary to give Chah Bahar a color of competitor of Gawadar. Iran-Indian Defense Pact 2003- which allows India to use Iran’s military and naval bases in case of war even against Pakistan- clearly shows Iran’s great sense of insecurity and sheer false arrogance which has made Iran a hostage of sectarian policies since Iran’s revolution. 

In short, Iran’s present policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan, being tinged with sectarianism and sheer arrogance, is not a good omen for Pakistan’s C-Pak Project and needs a befitting reply from Pakistan. Iran's economic prospects are not so promising as to put Iran at the central stage of regional politics. Out of $26.2 b Chinese projects in Iranian oil fields, $22.2 b projects have been cancelled or suspended. Iran’s present economy is $400 b plus (2014) and can grow at the rate of 5-7% in the coming ten years; even if it grows at 8% in the next decade, it would be standing at 870 b plus after ten years (in 2025). . As for military capability of Iran, it has been reduced to scratches and Iran is depending on Indian help to renovate it. As against these bare facts, Iran’s false arrogance needs to be cut to match its real stature, if they become a threat to Pakistan’s security.  

Russia is also becoming an important regional player which may impact C-Pak Project. Russia being aware of benefits likely to be accrued from C-Pak may also contribute to make this project a success. Russia may realize its centuries long dream of having access to warm waters by becoming a partner of C-Pak Project.

Similarly Western Asian Muslim countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, and Central Asian Muslim Nations may achieve a lot in terms of economic, political and defense benefits, by becoming a part of C-Pak Project.

From the foregoing, it becomes clear that the countries whose interests are attached with C-Pak Project or those who can gain economic, political and defense benefits out of this project cannot avail such benefits without adopting an active and aggressive policy in this regard. The states like USA, India and Iran – which are opposing this project- would not let this project run with full benefits, by creating an anarchic Afghanistan. The pro-Project states should come out with all out support for Afghan Taliban so that Taliban may overthrow Afghan regime OR a broad based Afghan regime free from   USA's influences, and fully netted with C-Pak may be established.

  

Interpretation of Deen and Human Intellect (4)

    

Now we come to the issue of people specific and time specific provisions of Deen. In the outset, it would be pertinent to mention what are people specific and time specific can be more appropriately called as strategies/policies adopted by our Nabi (ﷺ) to implement Deen. Though strategies/policies to implement Deen were also revealed to our Nabi (ﷺ) through ‘wahi’ or they were in accordance with wahi, but these strategies/policies are not fixed in their application though they are adopted under fixed principles of Deen.  The question arises what is the difference between fixed provisions of Deen (i.e. Quran and Sunnah including Hadith) and strategies/policies to implement Deen. The difference between fixed principles of Deen and policies to implement Deen is  that strategies/policies are based on Need. All verses contained in Quran are fixed Principles of Deen; similarly all sayings/actions adopted by our Nabi (excluding strategies/policies) are fixed Principles of Deen. The strategies/policies adopted by our Nabi (ﷺ) to implement Deen are based on Need. It does not mean element of Need is not found in fixed principles of Deen; element of Need is there  as well along-with Principles, but,  policies/strategies are what are based on changeable Needs ONLY whereas the fixed Principles of Deen which are to be implemented through such strategies/policies are unchangeable Needs. 

 It means if sayings/actions adopted by our Nabi (ﷺ) and pertaining to the same subject-matter are changed in two different situations, such sayings/actions may be labeled as strategies/policies adopted by our Nabi (ﷺ). Therefore such sayings/actions of our Nabi (ﷺ) may be called as people specific/ time specific. For instance, Ghazwa Badr was fought in open field but Ghazwa Khadaq was fought keeping within the city. Our Nabi (ﷺ) adopted changed policy/strategy in two different situations. Similarly sometimes our Nabi (ﷺ) wore thick clothes and sometimes thin clothes; sometimes rode horse and some other time rode camel; one time declared one deed as most pious deed and some other time, for some other person, declared some other deed as most pious deed.  Similarly policy/strategy of implementation of fixed principles of Deen  includes structures to be established in administrative set ups e.g  military, financial, judicial and political set ups; process of appointment of officials, judges and Shura; level of autonomy of administrative units; channel of reporting and accountability.  All  changed sayings/ actions of our Nabi (ﷺ) regarding all such matters are based on changing Need and are policies/strategies to implement fixed Principles of Deen which are unchanging. 

In all such matters which are relating to changed sayings/actions of our Nabi (ﷺ), people are free to adopt any suitable policy/strategy on the basis of their needs in such matters. 

But all changed sayings/ actions may not be called as people/time specific in the sense that they cannot be followed by other people and in other times. We can still adopt the policy of fighting an enemy in the open field; still wear thick clothes; still ride camels; still can adopt the deed declared by our Nabi (ﷺ) as most pious deed, IF all these acts match our needs. 

One mis-understanding nurtured by scholars who do not consider ‘Hadith’ as a part of Deen is that such scholars think fixed Principles of Deen do not remain certain/fixed, if ‘Hadith’ is taken as part of Deen, because there are differences as to which Hadith is correct and which is not. This objection does not look tenable when we look into nature of pattern of fixed Principles of Deen. There is no doubt that Principles of Deen are fixed, but they are not fixed in number. Every person has his/her own set of Principles which he/she is under obligation to comply with; the number of Principles to be followed by a person varies from person to person. For instance, a rich is under obligation to make charity and pay zakah; these are fixed Principles of Deen. But if any poor person has no money, he is under no obligation to pay zakah but he can make charity by giving smile to others; that is another Principle of Deen. It means if any person does not have access to/ or resources to implement any Principle, Deen offers him other options to implement the Deen. If any Muslim is not able to have access to/or knowledge of any Hadith, Deen may offer him other alternative Principles/Hadith  to be followed. Therefore by adopting Hadith as a part of Deen, no negative impact comes on certainty of Principles of Deen.

The concept of time/people specific ‘wahi’, as described above, is different from that one adopted by Ghamdi in many ways. 

Ghamdi declares Quranic verses as time/people specific in the sense that those verses were revealed in certain situations for certain people and as such are not applicable in the present age whereas the author’s view is that all verses of Quran are fixed Principles of Deen for ever; every verse is to be followed by addressee of the verse at the time and in the situation when application of such verse becomes due. Ghamdi says that many verses are addressed to the people of age of revelation only; the author’s view is that Quranic verses are addressed not only to people of age of revelation but also to the people of coming ages. The only exception are the verses addressed to our Nabi’s (ﷺ) person exclusively and in such verses singular subject/object has been used. All other verses in which plural subject/verb has been used cannot be taken as exclusively  addressed to our Nabi (ﷺ); but Ghamdi takes many verses as not applicable to present age Muslims because he takes such verses as exclusively addressed to our Nabi (ﷺ)  though plural subject/verb has been used in such verses.  No one – except Allah- can suspend the application of any verse of Quran. Ghamdi- when declares some Quranic verses as time/people specific in the sense that those verses are no longer applicable in the present age- actually uses Allah’s Authority to suspend/ cancel Quranic verses.

Similarly, in case of ‘Hadith’, he says ‘ahadith’ are time/people specific in the sense that they are not follow-able by the people as a part of Deen whereas the author’s view is that ‘ahadith’  are part of Deen. Ghamdi- when declares many ‘ahadith’ as time/people specific in the sense that Muslims coming after age of our Nabi (ﷺ) are under no obligation to follow those ‘ahadith’, he actually uses Allah and His Nabi’s (ﷺ) authority to make people exercise their choice in matters pertaining to such ‘ahadith’ (continued).