Pray, what have we to do with Gallipoli?

Islamabad diary
Agreed, that any excuse is good enough for a visit to London, especially when you have a flat there. But we could be more mindful of time and place.
As everyone knows, the Gallipoli campaign was Churchill’s idea, he then being Britain’s naval minister, First Lord of the Admiralty. Always having a high opinion of his geostrategic abilities, he argued that if the Dardanelles Straits, to the south of Constantinople, could be forced, Constantinople could be occupied. The Ottoman Empire would thus be dealt a knock-out blow that would take it out of the war, leaving Germany isolated.
On April 25th, 1915, an Allied force landed on the Gallipoli peninsula on the western side of the Straits. Commanding the 19th division on the Turkish side was a young Col Mustafa Kemal. I can do no better than quote Lord Kinross: “He (Kemal) rode through the forward positions, driving the troops over the slope with unwavering energy. Placing his mountain battery on the ridge, he helped to wheel its guns into position. He directed operations from the skyline with a complete disregard for his personal safety.” It was then that the famous order of the day was issued, “I don’t order you to attack, I order you to die.”
Kinross adds: “By the end of the battle (on April 25) almost the whole of the Fifty-Seventh Regiment (part of 19 Div) had died, charging continuously through a curtain of enemy rifle-fire to win immortality in the annals of the Turkish army.”
After that first assault the battle or rather the campaign turned into a deadly stalemate, all sides suffering horrendous casualties – French killed and wounded 27,000, British 73,000, Turkish about 250,000. Churchill had to resign as First Lord. (He went to serve in France as a major, staying in the trenches but since he was Churchill he wasn’t without what he needed of whisky, brandy and cigars. I point this out only to wonder whether we can imagine any former cabinet minister roughing it out in the wilds of Waziristan.)
To commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings a ceremony was held in London and as newspaper pictures tell us our PM was there too, along with other notables, holding a wreath in his hands and – may the Lord forgive me if I exaggerate – looking slightly bewildered.
Who was he there to represent, the defending Turks or the invading Allies? True, there were Indian troops fighting on the British side but they were there as colonial recruits, fighting for the glory of the British Empire. Indeed, more than half a million Indians were recruited into the British army during the course of the First World War, of which number over 60 percent were from (undivided) Punjab. Yet such was British gratitude for this support that at war’s end Punjab’s reward was the Rowlatt Act and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
Australians and New Zealanders mark April 25 as Anzac Day. For them it is an important date because the birth of a national consciousness – of being separate nations, separate from the British – they trace from the Gallipoli landings. The Queen and the British PM were there to remember their dead. But what was our PM commemorating? Isn’t it time we got over our colonial hangover? And shouldn’t we find better excuses for visiting London?
Or is it that our PM was moved by a spirit of historical and intellectual curiosity? In that case, it would have been more appropriate to attend the commemorative events on the Gallipoli peninsula held by the Turkish authorities.
To touch a different matter….the Yemen crisis marks a small turning point for us as a nation. The Arab or the Gulf hand has lain heavy on Pakistan for a long time, our perennial begging bowl placing us under an obligation of gratitude towards them. And their attitude towards us was slightly patronising. This may finally have changed.
Whatever the Saudi level of annoyance towards us – and they are bound to be annoyed to a greater or a lesser extent – it has been driven home to our Saudi friends that Pakistan is not to be taken for granted. We need to be friends with everyone and there is absolutely no call for us to go out of our way to annoy anyone but we could do without some of the fake sentiment with which we are always so ready about being ready to lay down our lives for the holy places, and more on the same lines…there being no one to beat us when it comes to meaningless words.
No one is attacking the holy places. Rather it is the custodian of the holy places attacking another country. But that is their business, not ours. The holy places have come under Abbasid and Ottoman dominion in the past but throughout Islamic history they have never been defended by any foreign army against outside invasion. Was the Pakistan Army about to write a new chapter in the history of Arabia Deserta?
The Yemen crisis has also been useful in demonstrating the limits of Saudi power. The Saudis were more effective wielding the power of their cheque book than they have been in displaying their martial prowess. Their air strikes have caused suffering in Yemen without turning the tide of war, the Houthis continuing to hold their ground positions and Mansour Hadi remaining holed up in Riyadh.
Can’t our Arab friends read the map of the Middle East? And can’t they see the havoc wrought by their arrogance and meddling in different countries? They helped overthrow Qaddafi and what they have gained by this is chaos in Libya. They set out to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and what they have reaped is not just a humanitarian but a geopolitical crisis, with the demon of the Islamic State growing out of the Syrian mess.
Do the Saudis want the same thing to happen in Yemen? They can’t change the facts on the ground and it is not in their power to restore Hadi to the presidency. But they can sow the seeds of a prolonged civil war and resulting instability – this not at the distance of Syria but right on their doorstep – unless they can swallow some of their pride and work towards a political settlement.
Saudi Arabia and Iran working together can bring peace to Yemen (no, we have no role in that). But for the Saudis to work with the Iranians is a horror not to be contemplated. Europe got over its mediaeval religious wars a long time ago. Not the world of Islam which seems to be descending into a new mediaevalism. We keep saying Islam is an enlightened religion. Why doesn’t some of this enlightenment rub off on Muslim countries?
Another positive outcome of the Yemen crisis is the plaintiveness of the pro-Saudi parties in Pakistan with their defence of Harmain Sharifain conferences. They seem to be ploughing a lonely field. Or is it the case that their impact only shows when they have the ‘agencies’ standing behind them? When will we outgrow these games?
On a slightly different note, why can’t the Pakistan Army develop some new thinking on Balochistan? As Hasil Bizenjo rightly points out, whatever there is of the Baloch insurgency cannot defeat the army. True, but is there no reaching out to the disaffected Baloch?
And isn’t it disturbing to ponder over the assassination of the Karachi social activist, Sabeen Mahmud? Rightly or wrongly, it points the finger of suspicion at quarters not happy with the reporting of events in Balochistan. Don’t we need a new approach?
Email: bhagwal63@gmail.com