The winds of change are beginning to blow

By Ameer Bhutto

MAY 12, 2007 was perhaps the darkest day in the history of Karachi. The city watched, in stunned disbelief, the unprecedented carnage unleashed in its streets, while a plethora of law enforcement agencies stood by as spectators, idly witnessing the bloodbath and often themselves running for cover. Bullets flew in the streets as all semblances of government and authority ceased to exist.

It will take some time for the city to come to terms with the brutality. It may take even longer to get to the bottom of the tragedy. But for those with eyes to see and recognise the truth, the writing on the wall is clear enough. One only need ask oneself why only the Chief Justice’s rally was disrupted while the MQM rally proceeded uneventfully.

A number of important questions arise from this tragedy: Firstly, why did the government feel the need to prevent the Chief Justice from addressing the lawyers in Karachi? If he can hold a twenty-five hour rally from Islamabad to Lahore that culminated with a similar function in Lahore, what apocalypse would have descended, worse than the one that actually did, if he had been allowed to do the same in Karachi? The Chief Justice’s Punjab rally was a mammoth event, beyond the expectations of the ruling clique, who were visibly shaken by it, to the extent that the very next day the prime minister was forced to concede that the imposition of emergency was a possibility.

Nevertheless, the Punjab government had enough common sense to realise that to block a public tidal wave by use of force is asking for trouble. This is precisely how mass movements originate, when the authorities bull-headedly initiate confrontation with the people. President Musharraf himself admitted in his speech at the Islamabad public meeting that no one can stop the masses once they are on the move. He has also claimed recently that there is a conspiracy afoot to destabilise his government. He could have out-manoeuvred the ‘conspirators’ by instructing the Sindh government to allow the Chief Justice to hold his rally. The president has no one to blame but himself for letting the ‘conspirators’ to run amok.

If it is alright for the ruling party to mobilise state apparatus (some say state funds as well) to hold a public meeting in Islamabad, and if their ally, the MQM, is allowed to hold a rally in Karachi on the same day, then why should the opposition parties be prevented from according a welcome to the Chief Justice? Either there is democracy in the country or there is not. If there is, then freedom of expression and political activity must extend equally to everyone. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry cannot be held responsible for the carnage in Karachi. He was not the one spraying bullets into the crowds in the streets. He came to Karachi as the Chief Justice of Pakistan and a free citizen of a ‘democratic’ state to exercise an inviolable right. The blame must rest with those who needlessly stopped him from doing so. That is what led to bloodshed.

Secondly, in view of the events of May 12 in Karachi, one must ask whether there is such a thing as ‘government’ in Pakistan, or at least in Sindh. When the president or prime minister come to Karachi, the Sindh government and all the law enforcement agencies have no qualms about sealing off virtually half the city to provide security for them, despite the inconvenience caused to the residents. Why could they not make similar arrangements for the Chief Justice if they knew there would be serious trouble? Even if we give them the benefit of doubt and overlook the serious accusations being hurled at them in connection with the bloodshed in Karachi, the government cannot, at the very least, escape the charge of mind-boggling incompetence and negligence. Among other things, they must explain why the massive law enforcement machinery played the ostrich while the massacre continued?

Are we to assume that the sole task of the heavily funded law enforcement agencies now is to harass and victimise political opponents of the ruling party, but at the first sign of trouble they have the mandate to run and leave the people to their own devices? How can the people feel secure ever again, knowing that Karachi has been surrendered to terrorists and they cannot count on any form of state authority to protect them? What can the raison d’etre of the state be if it cannot even protect the lives of its citizens? Heads should roll on this count. But we all know that such things do not happen in this country.Apart from fulfilling his duties of cheerleading for the president (a painfully sad sight indeed!), it was ridiculous of the prime minister to stand before the rent-a-crowd in Islamabad and assert with a straight face that his government would not allow terrorists to hold sway in Karachi, while on the same day Karachi’s Shahra-i-Faisal was adorned with dozens of dead bodies and the writ of the state was nowhere in sight. The prime minister’s farcical statements were improved upon by the president’s, who claimed that the Islamabad’s rent-a-crowd proved that the nation was with him, as if the carnage in Karachi was just a figment of our imagination. This government has placed Pakistan on someone else’s pyre by making us a party in America’s war on terror. But, at the same time, the reign of terror at home rages on unabated.

In even a semi-enlightened country, such a massacre would lead to the instantaneous collapse of the government. If the government did not resign, the people would throw them out. President Nixon was forced to resign because he ordered the bugging of the Democratic Party headquarters. Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori resigned on account of unsubstantiated allegations of corruption against not himself but his government. But this is Pakistan. Here, the Supreme Court rules that the privatisation of the steel mills reeks of corruption, but the government does not even blink an eye. Blood flows in Karachi but the rulers have the audacity to claim that the nation is with them. No one should hold their breath expecting the government to do the honourable thing and resign.

The third, and perhaps the most important, question is who will fill the leadership vacuum that has left the people with no one to turn to? People are unhappy with the status quo and have become restless. They yearn for a meaningful change. The response the Chief Justice has received across the nation is symptomatic of public discontent against the present set-p. While the government boasts of the rivers of milk and honey they have caused to flow across the land, the common man wages a desperate daily struggle for survival against the odds and he is drowning fast.

The situation is similar to the tail end of the Ayub Khan era. At that time, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto saw the telltale signs and took advantage of the seething discontent and unrest among the masses to launch a decisive movement. The present charged atmosphere is ripe for a similar political earthquake that could uproot many a seemingly stout oaks. If the people are pouring into the streets and facing bullets because of a suspended Chief Justice, who does not even directly touch the lives of common citizens the way a political leader might, then it is not so hard to imagine the response the appeal of a popular leader, who speaks the people’s language and influences their lives, might receive. No one would dare stand in his way.

But there are no Zulfikar Ali Bhuttos in this country today. The age of heroes is long gone, at least in Pakistan. The leaders of the main opposition parties have ditched their supporters and fled the country to seek shelter in cooler climes rather than face cases ranging from corruption and money laundering to amassing ill-begotten wealth abroad. Some seem to have taken up more or less permanent residence abroad, while others have diverted their energies to securing a deal with the government that would absolve them of their past sins and allow them to keep the loot, in return for their support. Instead of resorting to the irresistible strength of the masses, which should be their creed and which even a military president is forced to acknowledge, they have chosen the path of deals and compromises.

Not surprisingly, the interests and well-being of the common people remain unfocused in all this and they have lost faith in such leaders. Hence, the public response to the Chief Justice’s plight is a vent for pent-up frustrations. For these leaders to say that they will return if and when elections are held, or when their cases are withdrawn, amounts to rubbing salt in peoples’ wounds. The message this sends to the people is that they will come back only when there is some prospect of their coming back to power. In the meantime, the people should stew in their own juices, alone.

These questions and many more need to be answered. Winds of change are beginning to blow. The people themselves, rather than self-serving, corrupt, outdated and failed politicians, must dictate the pace and direction of change.