The Drone-Martyr (Shaheed)

Are the terrorists killed by the drones the real ‘martyrs’, or the civilians killed egregiously, or the ones in the Pentagon designing these missions with dead morals, or those pushing the death-button in their animation control-rooms turning soon into psychopaths, or those who let themselves be labeled as terrorists as they played proxies in return for dollars? Or are those nations the martyrs whose morale has been collectively killed each time the sovereignty of their nation is breached, or the politician who have to commit treason with their own people when they deal with each other under the table, for interests not concerning the welfare of their own people? Or was it the peace-process – that has been compromised several times, when it has been droned just when someone had shown willingness to talk – the real Shaheed? Were the Drones meant to eliminate ‘terror’ or to ensure its longevity?

The Drone brings no good; whatever its results are, they will always be un-measurable and un-confirmable. But they do serve the purpose of upholding the terror of a Superpower that has otherwise lost its credibility in the eyes of the rich and the poor nations alike – a Power that is willing to go to any level of barbarism, in a frenzy to grab any means that would reassure its dying glory.

The Drone and its appliers are equally as savage as the terrorists who bomb and cull innocent civilians in the name of a higher purpose. They have filled the international space with insecurity and suspicion. Instead of securing the next century for the US/NATO status quo, the drones have served to expose the brute hidden in their system, and may become a cause of its near annihilation. It has exposed America to be a church without a god, but one that deems to be a god itself, one that has failed humanity and brought much murder and suffering formerly alleged upon the church by its people.

So what can be the policy of states like Iraq, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan over drones; states that are being forcefully used as disposable pawns in the greater design of the imperialistic chessboard? Deals are made through back door diplomacy, governments are bought through deals and in return they are required to comply with the ethics of international diplomacy. One must note here the difference between a state and its government. A state and the government governing it are two separate things. A government is a variable, its policies keep changing, and it may or may not be the right representative of the state and its people. But the ‘state’ is relatively permanent, it does not have variable policies but has permanent ideologies, it defines the will of its people; the existence, security and welfare of the state and its people are one. In short, a state is a collective noun, defining the collection of the whole people, their property and their interests; this process of defining the state, which is a natural process that unfolds in time, holds the subjective perimeter of what this people ultimately agree upon.

Thus the policy of a state, which is not a variable, is one which ensures the ideology, security and wellbeing of the people, and can never be oblivious of the life of even a single individual, as it is nothing but a collection of these individuals. Therefore, any government that gets the chance to manage the affairs of the state must be on its toes to ensure these interests of the state, for they determine whether that government is fully representative of the state or not. This means that as policy, the State of Pakistan cannot allow its people and its territory to be droned. But whether the government can comply with this requirement of the state, has to be calculated, the government may face complexities in the diplomatic front, where it has to deal with a network of issues in the international community. This network may prove very competitive, wherein any government has to face a hierarchy of systems layered in such a way that all its loop-holes open on the side of the Superpowers. In such scenario, the reactions of governments have to inevitably be diplomatic.

Nevertheless, difficult times ask for stronger resolve and smarter resilience, and the affairs of statesmanship have never been easy. Complexity of matters cannot be taken as a valid reason for a government to sell out the ideology or lives of its people. Repeatedly maligning the sovereignty of the state and breaking the subjective morale of the people is more lethal to the state then physical attack. Saying ‘No’ to the drone may provide the US a reason to attack our soil, but not saying ‘No’ is giving it a chance to attack us on a daily basis and return home safely. If terrorism is an ideology, this constant beat-and-run strategy is no way to eliminate it, it will only strengthen the sense of enmity and revenge; and because the nation will not be able to take its due revenge, it will fall in the pit of shame and self-disrespect. A nation broken subjectively will not be able to resist attacks, whether physical, psychological, economic or political. So perhaps it can be concluded that general Musharraf’s calculation of letting a few drones and saving the country from being attacked physically may have proved a miscalculation in the long run. But five years of democratic rule is where the real havoc of the drones has come in view; what a dictator did in the last of his seven years, surely democracy could undo in its first month, but it has allowed this barbarity to be committed upon its own people for five years now. The people of Pakistan should be able to determine now whether the policies of the government are representative of the state of Pakistan or of its foes.