AT PENPOINT
The succession of attacks on Pakistan and Iran revived the familiar trope of Muslims under attack, while reviving the equally familiar trope of the ‘Hanud-Yahud’. Historical images have thus been revived even in a very modern guise, and it is worth noting that these tropes remain relevant even in the era of another trope, that of air warfare.
The recent episodes are not just Muslim, but are also ajami. That is a concept originally relating only to Persia, or modern Iran, and was adopted to mean any kind of foreigner. The people of the Subcontinent, though classified by Arab geographers as Hindi, after the river Hind (Sindh), which named the whole Subcontinent, were also seen as ajamis, as belonging to the lands to the east of the Arabian Peninsula.
It is not just that they are ajamis; the Muslims of the Subcontinent follow a sort of Persianized Islam, having been converted to Islam by sufi saints who had come to India through Persia. Also, though
However, it is not as if Arabs have not got their share of troubles. The Palestinian problem has intensified since October 2023, when the Israeli invasion of Gaza began, and it could be said that the Israeli attacks on Iran were a fallout of their support for Hamas. The patently false claim of Iran being near a nuclear weapon probably disguised extreme frustration at the failure to eliminate Hamas. Yemenis and Syrians are by no means out of the woods, while the Arab Spring by its very name shows the experience through which the Arab world has passed.
The only Arab states where elections are held regularly are Iraq, Tunisia, Lebanon and Iran. The rest are monarchies or have absolute rulers. Clearly, the Israeli intervention was not about spreading democratic values. Indeed, democracy does not suit Israel, because Iran de-recognized Israel once its revolution occurred, and though Turkey has not reversed its recognition, relations have deteriorated.
Though the Iranian regime was not toppled, there were rumours that the Shah’s family’s remnants were being readied for a comeback. It seems the USA has learnt nothing from Iraq, where its initial favourites were wiped out in elections, with pro-Iranian governments being formed.
The Hanood-Yahood trope is significant for Pakistan, because it was born in the teeth of opposition by the Hindus (the Hanood), with the subtext of Palestinian liberation, which was brought to India by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Hussaini, who visited India before Partition to drum up support for the Palestinian cause. It had become clear at that time that the British operation of its Mandate in Palestine was designed so that it could fulfil the Sykes-Picot Agreement and create a Jewish homeland there.
Among the reasons India held back from adopting an Israel-type policy while Pakistan was developing a nuclear weapon was US disapproval of an attack on Pakistan, at a time when it needed Pakistan to confront the USSR in Afghanistan. That reason may well have disappeared, what with the USA now looking to prop India up against China. Indo-Israeli cooperation, with US backing, is a danger Pakistan must be ready to face in the future
Initially, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s socialist principles made him keep India on the side of the Palestinians, even though Israel’s founders were also Labour followers, who had roughly the same Fabian socialist ideals as him. However, it was only when the march of history had brought the pro-American Janata Dal to power in India, and a more pro-US Likud government, that India recognized Israel.
It should be noted that the Quaid-e-Azam was personally committed to the Palestinian cause because he saw its resemblance to the Kashmir cause. It is worth noting that India apparently takes the same view, and follows Israel in whatever move it makes against the Palestinians, particularly in the West Bank. However, it seems that this time around, Israel followed India’s example, and has engaged in a raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities. India has not attacked Pakistan’s nuclear facilities, but is working its way up.
Also, it should be remembered that Pakistan has moved beyond the stage of enrichment-grade uranium to that of producing a weapon. Even now, it is not clear what happened to the enriched uranium Iran had, even though the facilities at which it was produced have been destroyed. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons have been safe from attack, indeed even an attempt.
It is not necessary that attempts be successful. Israel’s attempt was not successful enough, for the US strikes were made afterwards to achieve the target, not as a sort of follow-up, in which an already bombed target is retargeted, so as to ensure destruction. Bunkerbuster bombs dropped by B2s could only mean that the nuclear facilities, particularly those underground, had not been destroyed to the satisfaction of the commander, in this case the US President.
However, one element that Israel was able to deliver, which India was not, was what Trump described as air supremacy, which is when one’s air force can operate over enemy territory without even fear of opposition. To take the example of the B2s, the mission commander was fairly certain that there would be no Iranian air defences on the way, neither in the form of ground-launched missile batteries nor interceptor aircraft. From the point of the USAF it was achieved, but It had not been achieved to the point of preventing Iran from launching its drones and missiles, which meant that, strictly speaking, Israel and the USA had air superiority, indeed overwhelming air superiority, but not air supremacy.
On the other hand, it was the PAF which established air superiority, though not air supremacy, in its response to India’s Operation Sindoor and retained it till the ceasefire. A telling proof of this was that India made no official claims of downing any PAF planes during its own Operation Bunyanum Marsoos. The failure of India to establish air superiority had wide implications. Not only did it mean that conventional offensive operations were rendered impossible, it also meant that the IAF could not be used to launch any preemptive counterforce strike.
Bunyanum Marsoos had another frightening implication, when Pakistan successfully targeted Indian storage depots from the BrahMos and other missiles: it signalled to IIndia its knowledge of where it kept the missiles which would be used to carry nuclear warheads. A launch’s success could no longer be guaranteed. It is a truism that the best counterforce weapon is a nuclear device. If one cannot guarantee delivery, then it loses deterrent value for the country possessing it.
The Hanud-Yaud nexus is not a political trope to be exploited by rightwing politicians, but a reality, Israel has its own fears of the Pakistani nuclear weapon, expressed in its attack on Iran, in the report that Pakistan had extended a nuclear umbrella to Iran. The report is patently ridiculous, but less ridiculous than the whole Israeli project.
Among the reasons India held back from adopting an Israel-type policy while Pakistan was developing a nuclear weapon was US disapproval of an attack on Pakistan, at a time when it needed Pakistan to confront the USSR in Afghanistan. That reason may well have disappeared, what with the USA now looking to prop India up against China. Indo-Israeli cooperation, with US backing, is a danger Pakistan must be ready to face in the future.
