Could one imagine that the leader of the free world, a prodigy of women’s emancipation, the iron lady, British Prime Minister, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher was a staunch supporter of the Islamist conservative dictator and military leader General Zia-ul-Haq? Many might find it heartbreaking, but it’s true. Both Mrs. Thatcher and General Zia had a common interest, which forged them together – Afghanistan. And, the Russians liked Afghanistan too, for their own reasons.
‘O, Those Russians!’ Boney-M, the German-Caribbean pop band, scoff these words at the Russians in their wonderfully composed song from the 1970s – ‘Ra, ra, Rasputin/ Russia’s greatest love machine/ It was a shame how he carried on.’ These lyrics reflect the Western sentiments toward the Russians, their Communist ideology that threatened and challenged the Western democracy, liberalism, the free-world, and the capitalism. Yet, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the West founded a working relationship with the Russians – until Crimea happened, followed by the Ukraine War.
Hennery Kissinger once said that a major difference between the political philosophies of the East and the West – the orient and the occident– are the two events: The Newtonian Revolution of the 18th century and the Second World War in the 20th century. Both these events took place in the West, and the East only sufficed with a second-hand knowledge of them. These events have introduced pragmatism in Western civilization, compared to the prognostication in the philosophy of the East and its approach to the world and its politics. That is why probably we, in Pakistan, find it hard to swallow, as to why Mrs. Thatcher was supporting the military dictator General Zia. And we can’t stop bemoaning about the Zia regime, decades after it’s over – everything going wrong in this country is attributed to Zia’s Islamization and all other factors are expediently shrugged off. If we allow ourselves to deduce from Kissinger’s idea, we invest too many emotions in the matters of the world – politics especially. Once a doctor – a GP – in London said to me that Asian males (she meant Indian and Pakistani) are more prone to cardiac diseases as compared to white males. One can relate this to the way Pakistanis deal with the world.
We fought the Russians on behalf of the West and but then the West ditched us. Called us names: fundamentalists, Islamists, extremists and hence primitive. Treated us as less than humans. We felt jilted, heartbroken – why don’t they give us money anymore? But, how does it play out in reality? Can we distance ourselves from the West – the US, the IMF, the world Bank, the European markets – that is engaged with Russia on account of the Ukraine war? And here we have a political leader flaunting a cypher in the air and challenging the Americans that excites the emotions of a tempestuous public! I have argued before, that the West doesn’t have any problem with Islam – as a faith of as a culture – if it does not stand in the way of the world economic system based on capitalism, a rivalry which Communist ideology posed. This is one point which the Pakistani Foreign Minister, and PPP leader Bilawal Bhutto rightly voiced in his Swat public address – ‘No, the world is not against us, we are responsible for our own plight.’ He was firefighting by telling the world that we are no emotional fools, come talk to us.
The rivalry between capitalism and communism was not that of a political ideology alone. It was a matter of how the world economy works, and who controls the world resources. Mrs. Thatcher’s support for General Zia, and the creation of the Taliban, with the backing of the US President, Ronald Reagan, explains the pragmatics of the world politics – how you can assess your advantages and benefits. Benazir Bhutto’s support for the Taliban government in Afghanistan in 1994, is also a testimony to a pragmatic approach in politics. Being aware of the Western style of politics, with her Harvard background, Ms. Bhutto rose above her personal sentiments for General Zia – who’d hung her father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto – and decided to support the Taliban government in Afghanistan – the same Taliban created by the Zia regime. It was a political necessity of the time, and she didn’t allow her personal sentiments to come in her way – realpolitik. That is the way of the world.
So, can we say, politics is a landscape emotional fools ought to stay away from? There is no space for any unbridled sentiments in realpolitik. The world operates differently. The free markets are where different type of forces succeed rather than emotions – the competitiveness, the supply-demand apparatus and good-will. You can’t make substandard products and complain, ‘why don’t you buy this?’ On the other hand, politics is a domain of power, manipulation, public opinion – but again the public can only be allowed to have an opinion which those in power want them to have. For this they have media managers, spin-doctors, and a free media at their disposal. However, those in power need to handle this with care. The public must not go violent. They must not lose their cool. For, this they must have enough to eat, albeit their empty bellies begin to dictate to them some different ideas.
The tragedy of Hamlet ensues when he fails to accept the reality of the world and gets carried away by his emotions, guided by moral, religious, and philosophical thoughts that blurred his political vision. Whereas, on the other hand, his uncle, the usurper of the throne, who marries his mother, Gertrude, makes a bold speech in the court, announcing his incestuous marriage (by Christian standards) in these words:
Therefore our sometimes sister, now our queen,
Th' imperial jointress of this warlike state,
Have we (as 'twere with a defeated joy,
With one auspicious and one dropping eye,
With mirth in funeral and with dirge in marriage,
In equal scale weighing delight and dole)
Taken to wife.
Shakespeare – Hamlet
‘O, Those Russians!’ Boney-M, the German-Caribbean pop band, scoff these words at the Russians in their wonderfully composed song from the 1970s – ‘Ra, ra, Rasputin/ Russia’s greatest love machine/ It was a shame how he carried on.’ These lyrics reflect the Western sentiments toward the Russians, their Communist ideology that threatened and challenged the Western democracy, liberalism, the free-world, and the capitalism. Yet, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the West founded a working relationship with the Russians – until Crimea happened, followed by the Ukraine War.
Hennery Kissinger once said that a major difference between the political philosophies of the East and the West – the orient and the occident– are the two events: The Newtonian Revolution of the 18th century and the Second World War in the 20th century. Both these events took place in the West, and the East only sufficed with a second-hand knowledge of them. These events have introduced pragmatism in Western civilization, compared to the prognostication in the philosophy of the East and its approach to the world and its politics. That is why probably we, in Pakistan, find it hard to swallow, as to why Mrs. Thatcher was supporting the military dictator General Zia. And we can’t stop bemoaning about the Zia regime, decades after it’s over – everything going wrong in this country is attributed to Zia’s Islamization and all other factors are expediently shrugged off. If we allow ourselves to deduce from Kissinger’s idea, we invest too many emotions in the matters of the world – politics especially. Once a doctor – a GP – in London said to me that Asian males (she meant Indian and Pakistani) are more prone to cardiac diseases as compared to white males. One can relate this to the way Pakistanis deal with the world.
We fought the Russians on behalf of the West and but then the West ditched us. Called us names: fundamentalists, Islamists, extremists and hence primitive. Treated us as less than humans. We felt jilted, heartbroken – why don’t they give us money anymore? But, how does it play out in reality? Can we distance ourselves from the West – the US, the IMF, the world Bank, the European markets – that is engaged with Russia on account of the Ukraine war? And here we have a political leader flaunting a cypher in the air and challenging the Americans that excites the emotions of a tempestuous public! I have argued before, that the West doesn’t have any problem with Islam – as a faith of as a culture – if it does not stand in the way of the world economic system based on capitalism, a rivalry which Communist ideology posed. This is one point which the Pakistani Foreign Minister, and PPP leader Bilawal Bhutto rightly voiced in his Swat public address – ‘No, the world is not against us, we are responsible for our own plight.’ He was firefighting by telling the world that we are no emotional fools, come talk to us.
The rivalry between capitalism and communism was not that of a political ideology alone. It was a matter of how the world economy works, and who controls the world resources. Mrs. Thatcher’s support for General Zia, and the creation of the Taliban, with the backing of the US President, Ronald Reagan, explains the pragmatics of the world politics – how you can assess your advantages and benefits. Benazir Bhutto’s support for the Taliban government in Afghanistan in 1994, is also a testimony to a pragmatic approach in politics. Being aware of the Western style of politics, with her Harvard background, Ms. Bhutto rose above her personal sentiments for General Zia – who’d hung her father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto – and decided to support the Taliban government in Afghanistan – the same Taliban created by the Zia regime. It was a political necessity of the time, and she didn’t allow her personal sentiments to come in her way – realpolitik. That is the way of the world.
So, can we say, politics is a landscape emotional fools ought to stay away from? There is no space for any unbridled sentiments in realpolitik. The world operates differently. The free markets are where different type of forces succeed rather than emotions – the competitiveness, the supply-demand apparatus and good-will. You can’t make substandard products and complain, ‘why don’t you buy this?’ On the other hand, politics is a domain of power, manipulation, public opinion – but again the public can only be allowed to have an opinion which those in power want them to have. For this they have media managers, spin-doctors, and a free media at their disposal. However, those in power need to handle this with care. The public must not go violent. They must not lose their cool. For, this they must have enough to eat, albeit their empty bellies begin to dictate to them some different ideas.
The tragedy of Hamlet ensues when he fails to accept the reality of the world and gets carried away by his emotions, guided by moral, religious, and philosophical thoughts that blurred his political vision. Whereas, on the other hand, his uncle, the usurper of the throne, who marries his mother, Gertrude, makes a bold speech in the court, announcing his incestuous marriage (by Christian standards) in these words:
Therefore our sometimes sister, now our queen,
Th' imperial jointress of this warlike state,
Have we (as 'twere with a defeated joy,
With one auspicious and one dropping eye,
With mirth in funeral and with dirge in marriage,
In equal scale weighing delight and dole)
Taken to wife.
Shakespeare – Hamlet