It is no longer relevant to ask whether Pakistan will recognize Israel. The issue is when. From available evidence, which points to pressure exerted from outside on Islamabad to speed up the process, it is reasonable to expect that President General Pervez Musharraf is going to take that leap before the year is over. But before doing that, he will "test" the landing ground, making sure that the political risk involved will be adequately rewarded.
On July 6,Musharraf, responding to a question in a Geo TV interview concerning Pakistan's policy on Israel, said that as soon the independent Palestinian state is established, Pakistan might review its policy on Israel "after consultation with the brotherly Arab states". He also sent a warning to Islamic fundamentalists, and to the old and dwindling tribe of socialists in Pakistan, that deliberation on Israel's recognition must not be done with emotionalism.
The two-step
On July 16, in an interview with al-Khaleej of the United Arab Emirates, Musharraf used a slightly different formulation: he said that the Pakistan government can only study the question of recognizing Israel if the Middle East conflict is settled. "Islamabad will take its decision at the right moment and will take into consideration the feeling in Islamic countries and public opinion in Pakistan," he stated.
On the same day, the president received support from a political leader in Pakistan. In an interview with a private television channel in London, Pakistan Muslim League (Q) president Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain said that recognition of Israel could be considered once there is peace in the Middle East and an independent and sovereign Palestinian state is established. The PML(Q) is widely acknowledged to be Musharraf's personal political party.
The Pakistani president's eagerness to court Israel has not gone unnoticed in Tel Aviv. Commenting on Musharraf'sGeo TV interview, Israel's ambassador to the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Oded Eran, said, "We have seen the statement of President Musharraf on the issue of recognition of Israel by Pakistan. It is a positive statement and we hope that it will not prove to be a statement of political expediency and his views will be translated into action by the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and Pakistan." Eran, known for his skill of negotiating with Islamic countries, went a step further, saying that Israel will have an even-handed approach toward India and Pakistan, once Pakistan recognizes Israel.
When asked the million-dollar question, whether Israel would be willing to provide defense equipment if Pakistan accords recognition, Eran said, "We have a long way to walk. We want to have good relations with Islamic states, and Pakistan is a very important country. When we start discussing the areas of cooperation only then we can think of such an area."
At about the same time, the Nation of Pakistan reported that a high-level source in Pakistan's foreign affairs establishment revealed in Islamabad that Pakistan may not recognize Israel immediately, but that a study to establish some sort of political relations with Israel is in the offing. Moreover, he said, the government is also likely to be given options and recommendations soon in order to initiate some sort of diplomatic ties with Israel.
The timing
Although a firm date for the recognition of Israel has not been set by Islamabad, the process of softening the ground has clearly begun. It is likely that Musharraf, who has thrown in his lot with the Bush administration in order to survive politically, was put under pressure at the Camp David pow-wow with President George W Bush recently. Recognition of Israel could be yet another "favor" that the Americans want from him in exchange for Washington not rocking the boat in Pakistan. The lively Pakistani press will undoubtedly dig out the reason why Islamabad chose this point in time to get on the road to recognition of Israel.
It is not that Israel is considered "untouchable" by Pakistani authorities. From time to time contacts have been developed between the two. Side by side with the name-calling, which was audible to everyone, there existed secret contacts. In a memorandum from March 2000, a scholar from the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies (JCCS) in Tel Aviv documented various efforts by and contacts between the authorities of the two countries aimed at establishing diplomatic relations.
A host of Pakistani officials and diplomats have met, discussed and at times dined with their Israeli counterparts. Such contacts were held primarily in Washington, London or at the United Nations headquarters in New York. At the same time, a number of other locations, such as Yangon in Myanmar, Kathmandu in Nepal and Tokyo in Asia, Lagos in Africa, Ankara and Tehran in the Middle East, Caracas and Ottawa in the Americas and Brussels and Rome in Europe also functioned as meeting points for Israeli and Pakistani diplomats.
Some of these meetings were private and bilateral, while others took place at functions organized by the host countries, or by foreign missions accredited to the host countries. Israeli diplomats regularly monitored and reported the movements of their Pakistani counterparts. The document also pointed out that influential Jewish leaders like Edmund de Rothschild have privately operated, and at times funded, efforts to further Israeli-Pakistani normalization.
Comings andgoings
Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the winter of 1979, Washington came to Islamabad with loads of money and arms. The objective was to leave no stone unturned in the West's effort to give the Bolsheviks a black eye, and, perhaps, deal amortal blow. Pakistan, under the military dictatorship of Zia ul-Haq, was eager to comply. The arms and money flowed in, and Washington also brought in Israeli intelligence and other Western intelligence agencies to help out the Afghan mujahideen and Pakistani intelligence groups. During those years, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Israeli intelligence developed a complex relationship, which remains knotted even today like a basket of cooked spaghetti.
Likewise, in May 1996, another report suggested that Pakistani law enforcement officials met with the top brass of Israeli intelligence during a conference on counter-terrorism in the Philippines. The report disclosed that in February of that year, in several one-to-one sessions during the conference, two senior major-generals and three brigadiers of Israeli intelligence met senior Pakistani officials to listen and explain their methods and strategies to deal with the worsening wave of terrorism facing the two nations.
In August 1997, the Israeli media reported that a delegation of religious leaders from Pakistan spent a week in Israel. Besides visiting Islamic holy sites, they met Foreign Ministry officials and endorsed the idea of promoting Islamic tourism from Pakistan.
In September 1997, leader of the Awami Qiyadat party, Mirza Aslam Beg, who was Pakistan's chief of army staff from 1988-1991 following the mysterious death of then-president Zia in 1988, made his preferences clear, "Pakistan has no direct differences with Israel; therefore, we are a third party to the dispute ... We have no conflict with Israel; therefore we should not hesitate in recognizing Israel."
The latest reports indicate that Pakistan recently sent a business delegation to Israel. Some other reports say that Musharraf sent a special envoy to Tel Aviv on a secret mission some time ago.
India factor
A number of factors have stood in the way of normalization of relations between Pakistan and Israel. Of these, in my view, two stand out - and, significantly, neither of these is operative any longer. First is the India issue. India was one of the first countries to recognize Israel in 1947, but because of its pro-Palestine position in the Israel-Palestine dispute, New Delhi took another 45 years to develop full-fledged diplomatic ties with Tel Aviv. Equally important has been oil-short India's priority on pleasing the oil-producing Arabia. One Arab request was that India not develop full diplomatic relations with Israel, their ostensible enemy.
As long as India, a Hindu-majority state, kept Israel at a distance - although India had also developed many secret ties with Israel throughout this period - it was well nigh impossible for Pakistan to recognize Israel. For Pakistan, "Islam" and "Muslim solidarity" acted as barriers. But conditions have now changed.
India established full diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992, and New Delhi has gone pell-mell to strengthen its military ties with Tel Aviv since. This latter development was also motivated by a strong anti-Pakistan bias. It has perhaps become evident to Islamabad now that India has been obtaining from Israel sophisticated weapons systems and diagnostics, designed to exert a far-reaching military superiority over Pakistan. In an editorial June 19, the Daily Times of Lahore pointed out that a study was done by the Pakistan army in 1994 in which it proposed that Pakistan protect its strategic interests by recognizing Israel. The study estimated that Pakistan's presence in Tel Aviv could force Israel to "balance" its relations with India and recognize Pakistan's strategic importance in the region. Interestingly, Eran, responding to the news about improvement in Pakistan-Israel relations, made the same statement, saying Israel recognizes Pakistan as a "very important" nation.
The second issue is nuclear weapons. At one point in the late 1980s, a strong rumor, propagated mostly by Western academics, circulated to the effect that New Delhi was in touch with Tel Aviv to launch a surprise attack on Pakistan's nuclear research facilities located at Kahuta. Former ISI chief General Hamid Gul, the source of much disinformation over the years, was categorical about this evaluation. The surprise attack did not occur.
Instead, Iraq's Osirik nuclear facility was turned to dust by the Israelis; but Israel had no intention of doing the same to the Kahuta facility. But after the May 1998 nuclear explosive tests by Pakistan in the Chagai Hills, at a time when the crystal ball gazers were talking about Pakistan developing the "Islamic bomb", a number of Israeli analysts made it clear that Tel Aviv was not worried about the Pakistani bomb per se, but its effect on nuclear wannabes among nations considered potential threats by Israel. Israel had the same view toward India's nuclear program.
There were several reasons for Tel Aviv's sense of comfort and conviction that Pakistan was not making the so-called Islamic bomb. Eugene Bird, a retired US Foreign Service officer who was president of the Council for the National Interest in Washington, DC and a diplomatic correspondent for the Washington Report, wrote in March 1995 that in the middle 1980s, when Pakistan brought up the American refusal even to discuss the Israeli nuclear program with Tel Aviv, it was hinted to Islamabad that it might send a letter affirming that Pakistan would never help Arab states acquire an Islamic bomb. Pakistan's president sent such a letter affirming that his country's nuclear program was aimed solely at achieving a balance of such weaponry with India, and that Pakistan would not help enemies of Israel to acquire such weaponry.
Writing in the JCCS journal Strategic Assessment in June 1998, Shai Feldman listed four reasons why Pakistan is unlikely to transfer sensitive nuclear material and technologies to another Muslim state.
First, Pakistan developed its nuclear capability in response to India's nuclear program and as a result of its concern regarding its overall strategic standing vis-a-vis, India.
Second, Pakistan was at the time of writing hard pressed to persuade the US to lift the economic sanctions imposed on it. Even the most virulent pro-bomb political leaders
in Pakistan had to confront the harsh economic consequences of America's reaction to the nuclear tests. Rather than risk these consequences, Pakistan will not transfer nuclear materials to antagonize America's closest ally in Middle East, Israel.
Third, if Pakistan's nuclear capability has an "Islamic" dimension, it is as a "card" in the country's quest for influence in the Muslim world. Yet such a capability can provide Pakistan influence among these states only so long as it continues to enjoy a nuclear monopoly among the Muslim states. The transfer of sensitive nuclear material and technology to another Muslim state would contribute to the loss of such a monopoly, and would erode whatever additional influence Pakistan has gained among the Muslim countries through the recent nuclear tests.
Fourth, Feldman emphasized that the Pakistani nuclear tests did not change the situation in any way. Even prior to these tests there was little doubt in the Middle East regarding Pakistan's nuclear capability. The various factors that have dissuaded Pakistan from transferring nuclear materials and technology in the past are also likely to inhibit such transfers in the future, he prophesied.
Conclusion
Events have proved Feldman right: Israel still sees no threat from Pakistan. But then, if Israel does not see in Pakistan a threat, why shouldn't the two be friends, many Pakistanis wonder. They point out that there are, in fact, a number of reasons why Pakistan ought to recognize Israel. Writing for The News on July 8, Ahmed Quraishi pointed to the need for Pakistan "to neutralize both the money-hungry Israeli military-industrial complex and the strong Jewish lobby in Washington". "The first can cease the transfer of military technology to India, and the second can help in securing key Pakistani strategic goals with regards to a long term Pakistan-US relations," Quraishi added.
Still, what worries Islamabad is the possible Arab reaction to Pakistan's recognition of Israel. Yet there would seem to be little to worry about that as well. Last year, Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah offered Israel full peace if Tel Aviv agreed to a Palestine state. A report in the Pakistani newspaper Daily Millat on July 16 cited European Union, UN and Russian officials involved in the Middle East peace process to the effect that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and 53 other Islamic countries have agreed to recognize Israel by 2005. The delegation hailed Musharraf's positive approach on the subject, and hoped other Islamic countries would also adopt a soft line towards Israel.
"All the Islamic countries would be asked by 2004 to give their opinion on whether they want an independent Palestine state to be a member of the United Nations or have any objection to accept Israel as a state," the Daily Millat quoted a member of the delegation saying.
Assurances from Arab leaders will assuage Pakistanis who are concerned about Arab solidarity, but many Pakistanis feel that is a much-overrated item. These Pakistanis would point out that the Arabs did not, in fact, help Pakistan either financially or with arms in its past conflicts with India. These Pakistanis are particularly critical of socialist Arabs, not hesitating to point out that the late Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser used to go around saying that India was his second home. Similar gripes exist in Pakistan against Yasser Arafat because of his close relations with New Delhi in the 1980s.
By Prof. Sharu Rangnekar, Rangnekar & Associates, Mumbai.
Roles in family enterprises
A recent interesting news item in the management world has been the use of management consultants for revising the organisation structure of family-controlled firms. Since the concept of family came in about 10,000 years ago, the basic structure in the family has remained the same with the roles - Karta (the controller) and the rest of the members controlled by him.
As the technologies of farming and animal husbandry were adopted by man, he started acquiring "assets". To exploit the assets, he required help from outside the family, in terms of "hired help" or menials - who were controlled by the family members.
As the family assets grew and the family members were not adequate to cover all the activities, some persons had to be chosen from the menials to become the intermediaries, or munshis, who would rule the menials on behalf of the masters. Karl Marx called this group bourgeoisie. He had greater hostility for this group than that for the group of capitalists who owned the means of production. According to Karl Marx, the capitalists used the bourgeoisie to squeeze the proletariat - which was his name for the menials. He suggested the dictatorship of the proletariat and elimination of both the capitalists and the bourgeoisie. However, this never happened even when communist state became a reality. The government sector in communism in effect became the family sector of the politicians with the bureaucrats playing the bourgeoisie role.
Before the industrial revolution, the main assets were land and animals. After the industrial revolution, factories became important assets. To control the workers employed in the factories, supervisors and managers were appointed. However, all the employees, irrespective of their level, were basically considered as menials or hired help. There is a story of the President of India inaugurating the factory of a family concern. All the family members and the company officers were lined up in two groups. The tycoon introduced the two groups to the President saying : "These are the owners and these are the 'hired' help!"
However, some of the menials were raised to a special position. With industrialisation, the generation of wealth was rapid. In India, the family masters were helped by munshis which was a term carried over from the feudal agricultural economy. The munshi helped the landlord to squeeze the tenants for building of wealth, which was often spent on women, wine and songs. In the industrial economy, the nomenclature in the group changed to babus, babu ke admi and babu ke naukar. And this is the basic structure of family-controlled organisations.
The babu role
Babus are cast in the image of the masters in agriculture economy or the kings in feudal regimes - they are the power and the source of power. As such, their decision cannot be questioned - in fact, no question can be asked to them. Everybody working around them has to second guess them. This is illustrated by an interesting experience of mine. When I was consultant to a family-controlled enterprise located in a mofussil place, I stayed in the guest house of the factory. I was given the room normally given to a babu. Although the babu used to visit the factory not even once a year, the room was rarely given to anyone else. It was considered a speical gesture to give me the room. I was surprised to find seven different luxury soaps in the bathroom, right from Lux International to Palmolive, Mysore Sandal Soap and Cinthol. I asked the guest house caretaker, "Why do you have so many soaps ?" He said, "I have to keep all these soaps because I don't know which soap babu uses". "Why didn't you ask him when he last came here ?" I asked him. "No", he said, "we are not supposed to ask anything to the babu". "Which soap did babu use when he last visited the guest house ?" I asked him. "I don't know", said the caretaker, "he brought his own soap, used it and took it away !"
Similarly, when I went to Kerala long ago, I was told that when Mr. G. D. Birla visited the Gwalior Rayon factory there, jalebi mix was flown in from Mumbai to Cochin by air and thereafter taken by road to his guest house. He had a very simple breakfast - two jalebis, one samosa and a cup of tea. "Don't you think he would have enjoyed some South Indian dish like idli, dosa, vada, appam, or idiappam ?" I asked the guest house manager. He replied, "How can anybody know that - nobody can ask a question to babu".
Thus, babus are treated as a superhuman phenomenon as the tribal kings were treated in feudal days. They were almost attributed the divine powers and like the medieval British kings, believed in the "divine right".
Most of the babus these days are well educated - often with foreign degrees - and yet as soon as they get into their seat in the organisation, the mantle of divine omnipotence is thrust on their shoulders by the munshis. This is greatly to the advantage of the munshis, since the munshis derive their power from the power of the babus. The munshis are now known as babu's "advisors".
The munshi role
The greatest quality of munshi is his ability to second guess the babu and agreeing with him even before he expresses his opinion. He pampers and exploits the ego of the babu and is responsible for making babu feel that he can do no wrong. His success in the venture is due to his ability to isolate and insulate the babu. The babu is not allowed to be in frequent touch with any professionals who might contradict him. Such a professional is either weeded out or sent to the Siberia of the organisation. Other professionals take their lesson and quickly learn to agree with the babu and the babu's men, i.e., the munshis.
The menial role
In feudal days, the menials were hired by the master and the master's economic power was supreme. It is said in Mahabharata, "Arthasya Purusho Dasah" (Man is a slave of economic power.) In some instances, the servants were purchased as slaves and as such were considered the personal property of the master. Not only could he punish them with or without reason, he could even kill them. That was considered stupid, since the master destroyed his own property. But it was not a crime - just as killing your horse or cutting your tree was not a crime till recent years.
Now, the babus have a double strategy to deal with the menials. They purchase the menials by giving lucrative terms. Many of the terms are not given in black and white on paper, but are provided through informal channels. This makes it difficult for the menial to get an alternate job as he cannot prove his present income.
As a parallel strategy, the babus shower the menials with occasional gifts and rewards - particularly after humiliating them. It is like the old system of the husband bringing a gift after having beaten up the wife the previous night. A friend of mine was called an idiot by the babu in presence of his subordinates. My friend was greatly upset - but when he came home thinking of resigning, his wife showed him two tickets to Goa with the hotel voucher sent by the babu to enjoy their marriage anniversary.
In fact, shouting at the menials or humiliating them becomes a habit of the babus who thereby reinforce their feeling of superiority. Once I was sitting with a babu who was upset reading a fax. He summoned the peon and told him "Us gadhe ko bulao" (call that donkey). The peon asked, "Kaunsa gadha ? Production gadha ya marketing gadha ?" (which donkey should I call - the production donkey or the marketing donkey - meaning the relevant functional heads.) I once asked my friend, "Why do the people tolerate such himiliation ?" He gave a very simple explanation, "Ek ke joote tere sar par, tere joote sab ke sar par". (You will bear one person's shoes and you can make all others bear your shoes.)
This is how the babus keep their supremacy in the organisation. At one time, the babu group comprised the entreprenrur and his male progeny. Since the last few years, women are also getting in with daughters and daughters-in-law. This is where the babus are compensating for their low productivity in terms of progeny. The female of the species is often more vicious !
