The crisis in Pakistan: The end of Musharraf era
Dr Marjan Ali Khan
Tuesday,July 03,2007
The other day speakers at a meeting with the theme "The Crisis in Pakistan: the End of Musharraf era" at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace agreed that the present movement is no longer about the restoration of the Chief Justice but restoration of civilian rule and the army's return to barracks. The participants were Dr Farooq Hasan, a barrister from Lahore, Prof. Hasan Askari Rizvi of Johns Hopkins University, Murtaza Solangi of VOA and Frederic Grare, the Carnegie's South Asia expert, known for his anti-Pakistan stance. Dr Farooq Hasan called Pakistan a failed state. He said Pakistan doesn't need a vast army. "Who are we going to fight? China, India, Iran or Afghanistan?" Dr. Rizvi said, "If Gen. Musharraf leaves the scene, Pakistan will not descend into chaos, as some fear, nor will there be an Islamist takeover by a 'jihadi general'. He said the current movement is not directed against the US as such, but if there is no change in Washington's policy of support for Gen. Musharraf, the movement will take an anti-American turn. The report doesn't carry Frederic Grare's comments, and he didn't need to comment after listening to Dr Farooq Hasan and Dr Rizvi. When the men from within dance to the tune, why waste a word. This reminds me of one of our 'intellectuals' performing the duty of a guide for some American journalists during the US attack on Afghanistan. To the pleasure of his foreign guests, the host used to condemn everything in his country - from 'dirty cities, unhygienic foods, illogical traditions, narrow-minded approach, personal vendetta, to exploitative politics, misguided foreign policy, logic of keeping bigger army, and stupidity of wasting public money in making nuclear bomb, etc.' The Americans who themselves preferred to wear shalwar qameez and Chitrali cap, for their safety's sake, only laughed at him. An opportunity to speak at a forum such as Carnegie's is no doubt a feather in our 'intellectuals' cap, but they can be better respected if they do their ambassadorial role, like the Indians do, in a foreign country's soil. Dr Hasan called Pakistan a failed state, explaining "not because it has a weak economy but because it has no constitution…the future of Pakistan is in great trouble." No comment. One can only laugh at it. The honorable Barrister has suddenly come out of deep slumber after seven years of Musharraf's triumphant rule and all at once, after 9th of March, has emerged out to him a 'failed state'. The observation that the present movement is no longer about the restoration of the chief justice is eventfully incorrect. Either the opposition lacked street power or will to determine whether the present regime was working towards strengthening democracy, they could never unite on any single point to launch an effective movement against the government until the issue of Chief Justice surfaced. Their own leaders are still unable to take out a fairly attended gathering unless they use the ladder of judiciary's campaign. Despite the move has offered them teeth, they are busy in biting each other. Despite a common ground is available now, their internal differences, their leaders' denial to adhering to the democratic process within their parties, and the mudslinging spree amidst opportunism and vested interests is unable to pose a threat to President Musharraf. Was the MMA not aware of the fallout of the 17th Amendment giving Gen. Musharraf way to Presidency? If the President claims all what he did, he did within the ambit of Constitution stands out to be true. And if today the crisis of Chief Justice is resolved, I am sure there is no leader amongst the opposition to lead, and there is no point to launch a campaign against the government, for the assemblies are nearing end to complete their five-year tenure and general elections' date is likely to be announced. The President and Foreign Minister have already ruled out possibility of emergency and martial law in the country, and if the reports that the government is considering early elections are true, then there is no likelihood of restore-CJ movement directing against the US. The government has clearly said it would accept the Supreme Court's decision in letter and spirit and the President would decide about the uniform in accordance with the law. Question is whether the US can afford to end of President Musharraf's role while the war on terror is at its final stage, and in view of the Christian Science Monitor (June 19) the fear of nuclear-armed mullahs taking over in Pakistan "that led the Bush administration to back a military ruler", and Boucher's next day statement that for the United States, Pakistan is "more than the war on terrorism" and that the US-Pakistan alliance is not a "marriage of convenience", the US administration is obviously interested in seeing moderate forces joining hands of next government with President Musharraf at the head. Now turning to Dr Hasan's edict "Pakistan does not need a vast army. Who are we going to fight? China, India, Iran or Afghanistan?" He has not mentioned any reason, however, as to why Pakistan does not need a vast army. May I construe that because Pakistan is now a nuclear power? But the Barrister has missed giving same remarks for India, suggesting to cut its army into size as after going nuclear it doesn't need to have such a vast army. But the fact is that India has not only piled up arms, it has raised the number of its troops, with Pakistan-specific new war doctrine called Cold Start Strategy. New Delhi is busy in an unprecedented shopping spree for the most sophisticated defense equipment which would put it generations ahead in terms of military strike capability than that of Pakistan and almost at par with China. Indian Finance Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram, while announcing the federal budget for the next fiscal year commencing April 2007, informed the Indian parliament that the defense budget had been increased to Rs 960 billion ($21.8 billion) from Rs 890 billion in the previous year. This is much more than Pakistan's defense budget for the fiscal year 2007-2008. Indian military has planned a massive upgrade of its 1990s-era weapons systems, mostly from Cold War ally the former Soviet Union and subsequently Russia. The plans include the purchase of 126 new combat aircraft to replace an ageing fleet of MiG-21s. New Delhi has a shopping list of fighter jets, helicopters, cargo planes, missiles, radars, naval patrol aircraft and artillery for its 1.3 million-strong force. May I ask Dr Hasan who is India going to fight? China, Iran or Afghanistan? May I remind him India's top war strategists are asking New Delhi "there is no need of peace talks with Islamabad, as India is now fully capable to rip apart Pakistan with a full-blown swift attack, once and for all." The idea that the army should go back to barracks has symbolical logic but without reality on ground. Factually army is already in barracks, and practically very much in the field, on the forefronts of borders, professionally engaged in its assigned role and performing the duty at their respective positions. Around 90,000 troops are deployed on the Afghan border and a number of security forces, including army, rangers, levies, etc are engaged in maintenance of law, order in Balochistan. It was the army, already holding the power in 2001-02, which effectively responded to Indian amassing of troops on our eastern borders, and in Indian general, V P Malik's words, "the maneuverability on the Pakistan side was so swift and amazing that it provided no pocket to launching an offensive." No one is in favor of army continuously holding reigns of power but the fact is that the ongoing democratic process needs to be strengthened and the job must not be left half done. In Farid Zakaria's words "Musharraf has, on the whole, been a modernizing force in Pakistan. When he took power in 1999, the country was racing toward ruin with economic stagnation, corruption, religious extremism and political chaos. It was branded as a rogue state, allied to the Taliban and addicted to a large-scale terror operation against neighboring India. Musharraf restored order, broke with the extremists and put in place the most modern and secular regime in three decades. Under him the economy has boomed, with growth last year at 8 percent. Despite the grumblings of many coffeehouse intellectuals, Musharraf's approval ratings were consistently high - around 60 percent." (Newsweek, June 25)" The judicial crisis after March 9 must not be allowed to mar his overall achievements throughout the last eight years. The country can't afford taking things to point zero, but we have to move forward from here with a new vigor mending our ways, learning from the mistakes and delivering the good to the masses. The 'pseudo intellectuals' sitting abroad should come out with positive suggestions and guide the masses in positive way. It is upon the US not to leave Pakistan isolated at the time when the parliament is about to complete its tenure and elections are scheduled to be held. Dr Hasan and Dr Rizvi must pay heed to think-tank Brian Cloughley's articles, former CIA Director Gary C Sherwin's book and former Centcom General John Abizaid's statements. In his recent article published in Counter Punch, Mr. Cloughley has warned the US government and international community "not to leave Pakistan in lurch at a time when the people of Pakistan are undergoing great deal of sufferings in wake of their frontline role in the war against terrorism." Gary C Sherwin in his book "First in Afghanistan" states that "Musharraf's action against al Qaeda was praiseworthy and that he was doing his best in Waziristan too, and it was wrong on the part of critics to doubt him."
marjan.a.khan@hotmail.com
http://www.thefrontierpost.com/News.aspx?ncat=ar&nid=58