Musharraf’s difficult hour

By Izzud-Din Pal

GENERAL Musharraf was set to get re-elected president for the second term by his supporters in the existing national and provincial assemblies in the next few months. To many, it looked not much of a problem. After March 9, things began changing and the whole scheme seems to have run into difficulty. Now after May 12, the re-election appears to be a remote possibility, if not totally impossible. The West is also showing unease over the issue. British High Commissioner in Pakistan says the Commonwealth wants the general to separate his two offices by the end of this year.

The general began losing ground to his opponents after his controversial, and widely condemned, action against Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. Curiously enough, it has, to regime’s surprise, triggered a mass movement which continues to gain strength every day. And, if allowed to further spread, the regime fears it may sweep it out of power. How will the matter be settled in reality? The 1969 and 1977 protest movements against General Ayub Khan and Mr Bhutto give us a different view.

After adding a caveat that history may or may not repeat itself, it seems that General Musharraf is facing the worst period of his rule. The influence of external players may prove crucial in turning the balance in one direction or the other, with unpredictable consequences for the country. The political landscape, however, will never be the same again. It is not difficult to suggest that the Musharraf government will become very unpopular with the public. The general strike held in all major cities on Monday in protest against Saturday’s violence in Karachi which resulted in more than 40 deaths is apparently a turning point for both the government and the opposition.

That the government did nothing to stop this carnage is a hard fact. The riots took place on the eve of arrival of Justice Chaudhry to address the Karachi bar –– a programme finalised much earlier. The CJP has already criss-crossed the country on invitation by several bar associations and received unexpectedly warm welcome. That he was to receive the same emotional outpourings in Karachi has to be prevented at all costs was the official scheme. The MQM was entrusted a leading role in making this dirty plot a success. And it did play its part efficiently, pushing the city into the grip of violence, fear and insecurity after a long time.

All these developments are a harbinger of a major storm. The question is whether General Musharraf would be able to hold on to the office of army chief concurrently with presidency. All one can say at present is that its possibility has somewhat diminished. The changing circumstances may not allow him to continue with his centralised and authoritarian rule. He may have to experiment some form of decentralisation with the help of a civilian leader but it will not improve the prospects of transition to democracy.

In light of the new developments, all talk about Ms Bhutto’s power sharing arrangement is looking odd. It is understandable that the western powers may encourage it as a face-saving formula for the general, it remains to be seen how the general organises the game of musical chairs to give Ms Bhutto a key role and, at the same time, maintain his alliance with the PML-Q and the MQM. But he would have to concede to her more than he might have planned prior to Karachi riots.

Ms Bhutto’s desire to return to Pakistan, also, must be viewed in the context of the political topography of the country. Normally, opposition political parties in a democracy are virtual governments in waiting. But such parties maintain their credibility with their members, and especially with the public at large. How can this happen in Pakistan, under the present circumstances, when the members get splintered, attracted by alternative pursuits? A good lesson for a political party which it can emulate from the mature democracies is that in order to rejuvenate itself, and to cement its rank and file, it should arrange periodic leadership conventions and focus on its future agenda. This is not possible with Pakistan Peoples Party for its existence is immobilized because it is being led by a person who has assumed the position of life-time chairperson in exile (a very intriguing title in light of its professed faith in democracy). Some of its members have remained faithful to the cause of the Party. Others have become ‘patriots’.

The Muslim League, which played a crucial historical role in the formation of Pakistan, is now like a hydra, moving from one opportunistic incarnation to another. Then on the official side there is MQM, an esoteric formation of a group that is convincingly ethnic in its outlook, with its leader settled in exile in London, pulling all his strings from there. The MMA came into existence during the 2002 elections. There is nothing vibrant about any of these parties, whether independent or part of the official alliance. The military would welcome this vacuum.

The prevailing political situation does not bode well for the economy of the country, however. A sustainable economic growth requires a democratic structure, in the framework of the objectives as enunciated by Mr Mohammad Ali Jinnah, in which technocratic know-how can be used to find best available solutions to given policy options, but the final responsibility rests on the duly elected politicians. In the age of globalisation, with central planning replaced by functioning of the market, the age of authoritarian state is gone (notwithstanding World Bank’s distorted view of East Asian miracle).

It is a gross exaggeration to suggest, as it is done in some quarters, that the record of economic growth under the military rules in the country has necessarily shown better performance than under the civilian regimes. Comparisons can be odious as the challenges faced were different for each period. Under Ayub, the economy grew rapidly, establishing a historical record. In fact, this is the only time when physical capital formation in the country (net addition of new machinery and equipment) indicated an endurable performance. This performance has not been repeated since, as some studies indicate.

General Ziaul Haq took advantage of the international crisis created by the war in Afghanistan. He spent most of attention on Islamic reforms, with focus on some selected economic policies such as de-nationalisation of industries. The economic record of his period would have been registered as mixed, except that he left a legacy of heavy public debt, which the civilian governments that followed his rule were unable to resolve.

With General Musharraf, the period of Legal Framework Order presents a brave new beginning to focus on the economy. Measures were taken to bring about economic stabilisation which received a clear consensus in their objectives but with some differences on methodological issues. For the last four years, however, the claims of the government about poverty reduction, control of inflation, and economic growth have not been accepted by most knowledgeable analysts.

A prominent feature of the Musharraf regime has been its focus on various aspects of the model of a security state. As a result, one of the areas which have suffered from lack of attention is human capital. Publicly funded schools are scarce and the vacuum is filled by the madressah system. These institutions impart mainly religious education, but with a clear sectarian bias. It is well known that many Taliban are the product of these madressahs. Many observers are of the view that this arrangement is eminently suitable from the point of view of creating a security state built up by the military.

A democratically elected civilian leadership, under elections held periodically and in accordance with the schedule, cannot ignore the requirements of national security. But their perspective would differ from that of the military. They would want to maintain a well equipped and a strong military available at the call of the duty. Instead of relying on recruitment of freedom fighters, they would give priority to fulfilling educational needs of the people in order to build a strong nation. In my fifty-year association with university life, in teaching and in senior administrative positions, I came to the conclusion that foundation of innovative thinking and creative attitude is built at the primary and secondary levels of modern education.

There is nothing new or startling in my claim. Economic history of countries such as Japan and South Korea which made an effort to catch up with the West tends to support my contention. Of course, there is a place for institutions of higher learning while the curriculum at the school is modernised and made available through universal schooling.

The question is how to achieve the goal of liberal democracy in the country. The fact remains that transition to democracy is never easy. It is definitely never spontaneous and therefore has to be fashioned. In most cases it is protracted. The factors which might prove to be quite intractable would include the prevalent monopoly of political space by Islamic ideologues, the feudal elite and the military with its corporate pursuits. Many observers have argued that these monopoly interests may continue to dominate with official blessings. It should nevertheless serve as a challenge to a political party with progressive agenda.

Perhaps spread of modern education may prove to be the catalyst. It is, however, a long run process. Can the country stand still until it reaches that stage?

Power politics and Musharraf

Sufi Imdad Ali Soomro

As the general elections are approaching, all politicians are moving to another political gambit, though President General Pervez Musharraf continues to dominate the political horizon. Even the assault on the judiciary did not stir up opposition parties to unite under one agenda to launch a movement against President Musharraf. Before taking action against Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, President Musharraf neither bothered to consult the cabinet nor seek the advice of legal experts. The president’s action has shaken Pakistan. Sanctity of Parliament is flagrantly violated and members of the National Assembly did not dare to discuss this thorny issue in public. This led to lawyers coming out on the streets and civil society groups joining them.

The print and electronic media played an impartial and transparent role in the judicial crisis. The government tried its utmost to tame journalists and threatened owners of private TV channels to stop exclusive coverage of the issue, otherwise they should be ready to face dire consequences. The attack on an electronic channel office further weakened the position of the government and national as well as international criticism put the president in an awkward position. President Musharraf not only apologised for the attack on the media, but also assured exemplary punishment to the culprits.

Within no time, the establishment ordered the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) to close the transmission of channels that displayed the footage of the non-functional Chief Justice of Pakistan. It further provoked lawyers and civil society groups to condemn the government’s act and compelled political parties to hold demonstrations against the government in the apex court premises. Law enforcement agencies got infuriated and ransacked the media office and threatened the lives of journalists who were in the building.

The country is passing through a very critical juncture, as the situation in Balochistan, Waziristan and Bajaur is volatile. Suicide bombers have created panic and terrible fear in society. Even the army garrisons are not safe from terrorist attacks. The growing influence of the Taliban is taking deep roots in society, which is a negative omen. Religio-political parties are still posing challenges to the government’s liberal policies. The entire governance and economy is in a big mess. All and sundry know that corruption is at an all-time high in the state machinery. Abuse of power and authority are daily headlines. President Musharraf’s political allies are more a liability than asset for him. Most leaders of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q) are corrupt, inefficient and ineffective, with no sign of securing the required seats in the next general elections. The ruling coalition, which holds a majority in Parliament as well as in three provinces, has not emerged as a strong party as compared to the PPPP and the PML (N). Many PML (Q) leaders admitted privately that the party strength would be nothing without the full backing of President Musharraf. There is also serious internal dissent within the PML (Q). President Musharraf had relied heavily on Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and his ministers, who have miserably failed on all counts.

President Musharraf did not feel comfortable to defend his action against the Chief Justice for the first time in eight years. Most members of the cabinet avoided facing the media wrath. Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, who convinced President Musharraf to send references against the Chief Justice of Pakistan to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) remained off the political scene. The PML-Q President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain deliberately distanced himself from the judicial crisis and prominent lawyers intentionally avoided defending the government action at the Supreme Judicial Council. Bar Councils across the country became active and cancelled the licences of those advocates who supported the government stance.

Most political pundits are of the view that all political parties, willingly or reluctantly, are in unison to take part in the forthcoming general elections which will be held at the end of the year under the shadow of President Musharraf. Workers of major political parties may advise their party stalwarts to boycott the forthcoming elections in order to put political pressure on President Musharraf to put off his uniform, bring about electoral reforms and a neutral caretaker government. Pakistan People’s Party, which has not entered into an agreement with President Musharraf is asking other political parties, including PML (N) and MMA, not to leave ground for pro-government leaders, who are enthusiastic to get President Musharraf re-elected by the present assemblies.

President Musharraf is in the process of contriving a new political game before the general elections, which he has described as the “mother of all elections”. These elections will be a litmus test for the political survival of General Pervez Musharraf and his King’s party — the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q). President Musharraf has already kicked off his election campaign and at every political forum he not only emphasised but also sternly warned people to cast votes in favour of moderate parties, otherwise that would be the end of Jinnah’s Pakistan. Interestingly, he did not stress on people voting in favour of the ruling party, but stressed supporting a liberal policy in order to block growing Talibanism, which is an impending threat to the country.

In such a difficult situation it is inevitable for the president to work hand-in-glove with the PPPP, which is a liberal and secular party. The PPPP is still the largest party and has strong roots in the masses. Priorities and objectives of the president and the PPPP are identical, but both parties lack mutual confidence and trust. Many seasoned leaders of the ruling party and close aides of President Musharraf have been holding talks with the PPPP leadership to pave the way for a political understanding between a military ruler and Benazir Bhutto. For any such understanding, both sides will have to accommodate each other in accordance with the ‘give and take’ principle. If President Musharraf would seek Benazir’s support for his re-election for a second term, the latter would expect in return the withdrawal of all corruption cases against her and her spouse, Asif Zardari, besides a commitment from the General to remove all the legal and constitutional hurdles created by the establishment to stop her return to Pakistan and to the Prime Minister’s House for a third term.

Benazir Bhutto understands quite well that President Musharraf’s real power lies in his military uniform and as long as he stays in command of the army, the political parties, including the PPPP, will have to play the role of a junior partner in the future set-up even after a so-called power sharing deal. However, in the absence of a credible guarantor, none of the two seems ready to trust each other because of their track record with regard to keeping promises. Before giving a green signal to the PPPP Chairperson, President Musharraf would first like to urge the PPPP to re-elect him as president in uniform because he fears that Benazir may betray him as she did with late Ghulam Ishaq Khan.

__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.

The Intolerance Syndrome
Ghulam Asghar Khan

Hegel said, “What experience and history teach is this-which people and governments have never learned from history, or acted upon any lessons they might have drawn from it.” And he hoped for a great military leader who would accept the limitations of the constitution, because “human blunders usually do more to shape history than human wickedness.” Gen. Musharraf is in a terrible spin after March 9 when he transgressed the constitutional limits and called the Chief Justice of Pakistan to his office and ordered him to resign or face the “reference”. It was a blunder he committed either out of ignorance, or he was misled by the hangers-on around him to march on a course of collision with the judiciary without distinguishing the important from the casual. It was there he erred and unnecessarily initiated a constitutional war with the judiciary where it may not be possible to predict the future course of events, but at least the general current could have been discriminated from the vortex and backwashes in the political stream. The spin masters around have in fact pitched Musharraf against the masses who want an end to the military rule in the country. There are visible dissensions in King’s party and Gen. Musharraf is all the time running around to prevent the collapse of this fake ‘house of seven gables’. His PML-Q (it most certainly is not Quaid-e-Azam’s league) is a bunch of power seekers that has failed to face a crisis situation and is instead pushing Musharraf to fight the political battle as the frontline runner on the home front. In no stretch of imagination the PML-Q has been picked up as a national party. It instead has become slave to the Chaudhrys of Gujrat who are ruling the roost. Their popularity in Punjab was shred into pieces when whole of the province joined CJ Chaudhry’s phenomenal march from Islamabad to Lahore. It was perhaps the biggest procession that took about 28 hours to reach Lahore. It was rare exhibition of exuberance by the masses who, waited under the burning sun to have a glimpse of a redeemer who had risked everything at the altar of justice and fair play. It reminded me of the pre-partition days processions when even the toddlers used join their elders to express solidarity with Mr. Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan. Today’s Pakistan is not the same that was founded by Jinnah in 1947; a Promised Land where the Muslims of the sub-continent would finally be able to achieve their cultural and democratic destiny. Its early years nevertheless held some promise, but after the death of the Father of the nation and the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistan gradually grew weaker, more authoritarian and increasingly unstable with an inward looking society that has become manifestly intolerant and an enigma to the present day world. Stephen Philip Cohen in his new book rejects the most alarmist scenarios, but warns that without major reforms Pakistan’s prospects are indeed grim. Cohen maintains that no elected government was allowed to complete its tenure in Pakistan’s 60-year history. The result has been ideological confusion, civilian helplessness and an environment eminently hospitable to putsches. Pakistani generals express contempt for the civilian order and steadfastly hold that “what is good for the army is good for Pakistan” and Pakistani society is thoroughly militarised. Cohen remarks, “regardless of what might be desirable, the army will continue to set the limits on what is possible in Pakistan.” The persistent army takeovers have given rise to popular feelings that all countries have armies, but here in Pakistan the army has a country. Indeed, even when civilian governments have nominally been in charge in Pakistan, there has never been much doubt about who actually makes decisions in the country. And over the years, in addition to holding political power, it controls vast commercial and industrial interests and owns massive rural and urban properties. Cohen also breaks with Musharraf’s staunchest international backers, who see him as a wise and modern leader, a secular man who is not afraid of supporting the US, or to offer peace to India, and a General who can hold back the onrush of demagogues and Islamic extremists. He adds that “no serious Pakistani analyst sees Musharraf in these terms; if he resembles any past Pakistani ruler; it is Gen. Yahya Khan, also a well-intentioned general who did the US a great favour.” Army is only one (albeit the most important) component of the wider establishment that runs Pakistan. Cohen calls this establishment a ‘moderate oligarchy’ and defines it as “an informal political system that ties together the senior army brass, the civil bureaucracy, key members of the judiciary and other elites.” The members of this oligarchy have a common set of goals, the perpetuation of military rule in Pakistan and against all odds, to be on the right side of the US; a tacit willingness to serve the White House at any cost. “Pakistan has adapted to changing strategic circumstances by renting itself out to the United States after 9/11. It came as a windfall to Gen. Musharraf, who received huge amount of financial assistance and strategic equipment to play the frontline role in the US invasion of Afghanistan. This lavish US assistance package gave sudden boost to Pakistan economy beyond a certain point. Although, economic growth is currently healthy, thanks to Washington’s overwhelming assistance, but what happens once it ceases? Pakistan has a fundamentally weak economy that is deeply dependent on remittances from overseas workers. Low-tech textile exports are the mainstay of its industrial production, and its work force doesn’t meet the requirements of a modern economy. Musharraf is apparently strong enough to prevent state failure but not imaginative enough to push through changes. In the long run, minimal economic opportunity, a booming birth rate, intensive urbanisation, a failed educational system and a hostile regional environment will result in a large, young and ill-educated population that has few prospects for economic redemption and would be susceptible to political mobilisation by the radicals.” Political reforms must begin with the banishment of military takeovers on flimsy grounds of law and order and corruption. If law and order and corruption were the hallmarks of the political leaders, than the present law and order situation and corruption in the present set up is worst. There was a rare exhibition of state sponsored terrorism in Karachi on May 12 where the government agencies were silent spectators while the city was facing the worst carnage. It’s a strange system of administration in vogue where the Sindh CM, instead of owning the responsibility is blatantly accusing the judiciary and is reluctant to take action against the London controlled gang that has held the city of Karachi hostage and has been devouring its citizens over the last seven years. After all, why the government is failing in its duty to provide the security of life and property to its citizens? Both the pampered Chief Ministers of Sindh and Punjab have, one way or the other, been castigating the higher judiciary, the former with corruption and the latter with a new reference against the Chief Justice of Pakistan Mr. Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry. These unguarded insinuations certainly fall within the purview of contempt of court. Judicial institutions are not invented or made; they are alive and grow with the passage of time. Hence they must be approached with reverence and touched with caution. Ibne Khaldun says, “Since a judge dispenses justice, his office holds a place with God to which nothing else compares. It is God’s scales in which the conditions of men on earth are equalised. Making decisions and dispensing justice in judicial procedure and all actions brings well being to the subjects.”

__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.

The Mysterious President
Jehanzeb Khan

Born in a middle class family on August 11, 1943 in Delhi, migrated to Pakistan after the Independence, educated and raised in Karachi, started a military carrier in the Pakistan Army in 1964, professionally trained in United Kingdom, commanded artillery/infantry, led commando units, fought on various fronts, served as Director General Military Operations in two democratic governments, reached the position of Chief of Army Staff on April, 1999, become Chief Executive in the same year, elected as President in 2002 for a period of five years, wishing to be re-elected again in 2007, admirer of Kemal Ataturk, propagating enlightened moderation, fighting war on terrorism, shrugged off three assassination attempts and half a dozen plots, wishing to roll back his predecessors legacy, trying to be stable between moderation and extremism, propagating impartiality in domestic politics, and drumming economic growth for the last 7 years is the man called President General Pervez Musharraf. He has his own vision and a unique way of looking at the domestic and international affairs. On more then one occasions, he gave strange, contradictory and funny comments. The gang rape of Mukhtaran Mai got international attention. Mukhtaran Mai got North South Prize from EU Council of Europe, Glamour Magazine named her “Woman of the Year”, her autobiography become the third best seller in France. She has been praised by Laura Bush and the French foreign minister. She attended and addressed international conferences/seminars, the media gave coverage to her sufferings, courage, determination and social welfare work. She became the icon of women struggle against atrocities in Pakistan. The whole world admit the issue of gang rape in Pakistan. While President Musharraf said in an interview that “gang rape is a "moneymaking concern" in Pakistan. "A lot of people say that if you want to go abroad and get a visa from Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped". The Interview is pasted on the “Washington Post website. This statement was widely criticised and later the president denied it. Another issue is the missing persons. It is a big issue and taking momentum day by day. The families of the missing persons categorically charged that their missing family members were detained by intelligence agencies and are still with them. The Supreme Court of Pakistan took notice of it, some of the missing persons were found in Guantanamo Bay, and with the intelligence agencies in Pakistan. But the President said in an interview that “nobody was “missing” and no intelligence agencies detained anybody”, those who were claimed to be missing were terrorists, who had gone to Afghanistan, where they killed themselves in suicide missions”. His ruling in uniform is controversial since his election as a President. He said in a nationwide radio and television address that "After giving it serious thought, I have decided to give up my uniform before Dec. 31, 2004, for creating political harmony in the country. I will select the date myself within this period". While in an interview with BBC Urdu in May 2007, he said that “he is proud to be an army man, and the uniform is like his second skin, adding, "then how can I even think of taking it of". Commenting on a petition filed by Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal's chief Qazi Hussain Ahmed challenging his uniform, President Musharraf said that the Supreme Court is the right place to decide the issue. He said after failing to keep his promise to doff the uniform, he has learnt a lesson that in future promises should not be made. The suspension of Chief Justice triggered a judicial crisis and a wide spread protest by the opposition and judiciary, Musharraf said on more then one occasion that he is waiting for the decision of the court, which will be acceptable to him, in any case. But he refused to answer the question for his “moral responsibility” if the decision of the full court is in favour of Chief Justice. The Lal Masjid issue is also controversial in the Musharraf Government. Some of the people believe that it is state sponsored movement to assure the western powers that extremism is increasing in Pakistan and Musharraf is the person to suppress it. In an interview to the BBC's Urdu service, Musharraf said that military forces could not be deployed due to ppress it. "How can we take any action? They have weapons and are also prepared to carry out suicide attacks," he said. Talking to Mr.Talat Hussain of “Aaj” TV in an interview on May 22, 2007, the President said that the opposition was trying to associate me with the MQM. He said though he was an Urdu-speaking but he had no connection with MQM. While the President called a meeting on the request of MQM. The MQM complained that the PML (Q) was not supporting them on the May 12 Karachi issue. “You are my team and you need to stay united. Don’t isolate the MQM”, the President told them. Musharraf said that he was saddened by the loss of human lives in Karachi but opposition parties should have thought that why they were challenging the government collation partners. Commenting on the May 12 Karachi situation he said had the MQM allowed the Chief Justice to take out the rally, 20-30 thousand people would have been roaming in MQM strongholds giving the impression that the party has lost its clout in Karachi. According to daily The Nation, when Musharraf's attention was brought to demands for an independent inquiry by several quarters at a high-level meeting of the Sindh High Court Bar Association, he said, "forget an inquiry" into the carnage. Later on the President held Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and his lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan responsible for the May 12, 2007 violence in Karachi. President Musharraf was interviewed by CBS correspondence Steve Kroft on September 2006 after launching his book “In the Line of Fire” on the issues of 9/11, joining the coalition against terrorism and A.Q.Khan’s affairs. The president has an interesting interview with Steve Kroft. Steve Kroft: There have been half a dozen plots on your life. Why are so many people trying to kill Pakistan's president? President: "These people are extremists, terrorists, they believe in forcing their views on others. So, I’m standing in their way, frankly," Musharraf says. Steve Kroft: "The suicide attacks. You discovered that most of the plotters were from the Pakistani Air Force," Kroft remarks. President: "Yes" Asked if that disturbs him, the president acknowledges, "It did. It's all the lower ranks. They are susceptible to such extremist, terrorist tendencies and to be indoctrinated to do these things." After 9/11 the U.S. made it clear that Pakistan relationships with Al-Qaida and Taliban would have to end, and Musharraf said the message was delivered by the Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. "The Director of Intelligence told me that he said, 'Be prepared to be bombed.' Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age”. Steve Kroft asked what was his reaction? Musharraf said "One has to think and take action in the interest of the nation and that's what I did," adding it was a "very rude remark." "It was a threat, certainly," Musharraf says. "I took it that the United States, after having whatever happened to the World Trade Center, would be a wounded country - a wounded sole superpower and they are going to do anything to counter and to punish the perpetrators. Now, if we stand in the way of that, we are going to suffer."

__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.

Musharraf: winning or losing?

By Mohammad Waseem

CURRENT events make interesting reading. President Musharraf has declared that uniform was too close to him to be shed away just like that. The MMA caravan, led by Qazi Hussain Ahmed, has been out on the road. Imran Khan’s visit to Karachi has taken an unexpected turn towards his character assassination. The presidential reference in the Supreme Court has been described as the battle between Truth and Falsehood. Which is which?

Is the party over? This is the question currently being asked through the length and breadth of Pakistan as well as in the relevant quarters abroad. Speculations about the prospects of President Musharraf to stay in power define the contemporary patterns of alignment and realignment out in the field.

After March 9, when the Chief Justice of Pakistan was rendered non-functional, and lawyers launched their agitation, one wondered whether a movement was in the making. It could be just one of many frustrating moments in recent years when people felt sad over what they perceived as non-accountability of rulers. But at that time things were pretty settled for the government.

After all, the number of legal practitioners was limited. Their potential to lay off their professional activities for days and weeks was not boundless. The liaison between lawyers and opposition parties was at best tenuous. All lawyers were not in opposition anyway, even if many were perhaps converted to the cause of the judiciary after March 9. Being socially embedded in the middle class, lawyers’ ability to engage the masses in a nationwide campaign was inherently constrained.

Could the political opposition take the matter forward? The PPP was negotiating with the government. The PML-N felt nervous about it. MMA gave mixed signals. Qazi Hussain Ahmad found in the judicial crisis an opportunity to strike at the government. However, Maulana Fazlur Rahman attached considerable importance to MMA’s stakes in the system and assumed a cautious approach to the lawyers’ agenda for agitation. Others lashed out at the government for being anti-democratic, anti-people and anti-judiciary. Opposition parties could not have been more divided than they were at the start of the agitation.

Then came May 5. Punjab was electrified by the 25-hour journey of the Chief Justice from Islamabad to Lahore along the G. T. Road. It pulled thousands of people from their homes and hearths on to the roadside. They exhibited a hope for a change in the system. This journey demonstrated a spontaneous surge of people in favour of a visible victim of what they perceived as the state’s highhandedness.

Punjab as the power base of Pakistan was shaken. That was the moment for worry for the government. Till then, it had considered the movement as frivolous and doomed to fail sooner or later. But what happened on May 5 led to a knee-jerk reaction. The government termed the caravan of the Chief Justice as a rally, which it was not.

It was neither sponsored nor organised nor financed nor indeed led by political parties. It was not a show of force but a show of anger against the government as well as a show of love for the new icon on the horizon. Nobody would have bet on Chaudhry Iftikhar for being an aspirant for President Musharraf’s position. He emerged as a symbol of protest not as a contender for power.

The opposition parties were far from fully or even seriously mobilised to take over the movement. Still, the government crackled under the pressure. It made a political move that carried a potential for unpredictable consequences. It chose to fight back by mobilising the street. By doing that, it took the risk of eliciting a negative response from society, which was bewildered to see the military-led government feel the need to make a show of strength.

One can observe that the government’s strategy had three identifiable components. First, it sought to render the scheduled visit of the Chief Justice to address the Sindh Bar Association meaningless. It tried to make it look bland and blank, to be understood as turn of the tide in a mode of retreat. It barred the way of the Chief Justice to traverse the scheduled route to the Sindh High Court to meet his commitment. Unwittingly, it reinforced the martyr image of the non-functional judge. Second, it has been widely alleged that the government sub-contracted Karachi to the MQM, its ally in the Sindh government. The show-of-strength strategy in Karachi depended on a party which presumably had not been consulted before the president filed reference against the Chief Justice. Still, it felt obliged to defend it. The MQM chose to come out on the street against what had already become a popular cause. Not surprisingly, the party leadership exhibited a sense of loss in its popular appeal after the tragic events of May 12. It apologised for not fulfilling the responsibilities of a party-in-government in the form of not providing security to Aaj TV.

How far can the reports about the I.G. Police and Home Secretary, Sindh, excusing themselves from carrying out the orders for the Chief Justice of Sindh High Court be damaging for the writ of the government? How can the reported withdrawal of weapons from police on the fateful day of expected armed clashes between rival political parties make sense to a bewildered nation? Was it actually a show of weakness of a government running out of options, rather than a show of strength?

The third component of the official strategy was the rally in Islamabad on the evening of May 12. Being neither related to election nor to a burning issue nor to an ideology, the event suffered from a moral deficit. The rent-a-crowd approach turned the whole exercise into a spiritless event.

In terms of numbers, the project of gathering up to half a million people boiled down to a mere fraction of it. Most significantly, the jovial atmosphere displayed in the Islamabad rally on the day Karachi experienced a bloodbath was a tragic reminder of the distance between the rulers and the ruled. It looked as if Islamabad and Karachi belonged to two different countries unaffected by each other.

The best advice the government would have got at that time was to postpone the rally in sympathy for the dead and the wounded in Karachi. It would have won a high moral ground or at least would not have lost it further if it had kept the show for another day. However, the massive preparations for the rally foreclosed the option of its postponement immediately after the news of Karachi killings was splashed by the media.

What has really happened during the last two months? Does the story go beyond the judicial crisis in the country? It seems that most typically military regimes tend to believe only in their own words. If they discredit politicians, they believe that politicians have been discredited. If they declare that the country is developing under them by leaps and bounds, they think that the people too believe so.

The public has been estranged from the way the state’s authority has been exercised during the last eight years. The Musharraf government chose to live with alienation of one group after another: the MMA parties, the ARD parties, various judges who stood retired after they refused to take a new oath, Baloch nationalists smarting under the army operation and lawyers, journalists and intelligentsia in general.

The government has disregarded the existence of a vigilant civil society, which felt a bitter taste in the mouth after each step in the wrong direction. No government can afford to alienate an additional million people after every event of a controversial nature. One can count several events of this kind: the malpractices during voting for the 2002 referendum, the 2002 general elections and the 2005 local bodies elections; the stock exchange scam; the aborted sale of the Pakistan Steel Mill; the death of Nawab Akbar Bugti; the poor handling of the issue of Jamia Hafsa, and now the ‘suspension’ of the Chief Justice.

Washington found itself caught unawares. Its strategy for Pakistan was based exclusively on a policing approach, drawing on the military’s potential to fight its war against terrorism. Society in Pakistan stood apart, alienated and frustrated. How did it reflect on President Musharraf’s profile? Many observers say that large sections of society continued to be radicalised under Musharraf. But Washington all along identified him with the war against Islamic militants. Has the myth finally exploded?

Ever since Democrats took control of Congress, the pressure for democracy in Pakistan has increased. In this election year, the president is expected to face a huge array of forces lined up against him. He will soon complete his eight years in office, equal to two four-year terms of President Bush. The American president lost considerable influence in his sixth year and is now preparing for exit next year. In Pakistan there is no exit strategy for a president-in-uniform. President Musharraf will probably devise one for himself as and when he likes – if events do not overtake him.

There are too many stakeholders in the present system to allow a genuine expression of the public will through an electoral exercise to be held under an independent election commission. President Musharraf is unlikely to step down in favour of a caretaker government assigned with the task of holding elections. His advisers would probably push him to fight back, even if fit needs to employ extra-constitutional means, as hinted by the president himself. The nation needs to be spared another constitutional crisis.

__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.

With or without Musharraf

By Imtiaz Alam

(The writer is editor current affairs, The News, and editor South Asian Journal)
Western newspapers are full of projections about post-Musharraf Pakistan, mostly writing off Musharraf both as a partner in the war against terrorism and the one who can be trusted with the delicate task of transition to democracy. The notion that Pakistan will be up for grabs by the extremists since there isn't an alternative to Musharraf is being scoffed at by the international media, thanks to the on-going great liberal, republican and constitutionalist movement of lawyers and the consistent lobbying done by Ms Benazir Bhutto. Yet the two top state department officials stopped at holding of free and fair elections as a top priority, leaving the uniform issue to the convenience of the COAS-President to determine while revising the earlier stated position that the president ought to be elected by the next assemblies. After all, they can't afford to destabilise a sitting government in which they have invested so much. What if Musharraf remains or leaves?

The proposition of with or without Musharraf is not only an issue of real politick, but also related to the kind of alternative that can satisfy peoples' aspirations and meet the geo-strategic demands of an international consensus in the region. The answer depends on two sets of interwoven forces and the nature of change already in the offing. Most primarily, for the time being, it depends on how the three-month long movement of the legal fraternity and civil society evolves beyond the judgement of the full bench of the Supreme Court in the case of the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP). No doubt, the Supreme Court judgement to either restore their chief or uphold his suspension is going to play a crucial role in determining not only the future role of the judiciary, but also the (mis)fortunes of General Musharraf. There are three possibilities: a) if the CJP is restored without any relief for the executive, it will be a big blow to Musharraf and strengthen the judiciary while somewhat dampening the lawyers' rage; b) if the CJP is restored and asked to voluntarily or otherwise step down, it will be most devastating for the government; in this event a vindicated CJP will be free to lead the still bigger mass movement; c) if the CJP is not restored, it will further arouse the peoples' sentiments against an authoritarian regime and a pliant judiciary.

In anticipation, the leaders of the bar are already preparing their community and civil society to look beyond the restoration of the CJP and the struggle for full restoration of an undiluted democracy. The tempo of the lawyers' movement has not broken, nor has it shown any fatigue. The 22-hour journey of the CPJ and his convoy from Islamabad to Faisalabad is the latest testimony to the peoples' support of the democratic bars. But, since the rallying point for lawyers, civil society and political activists is the CJP's entourage, it has not so far spread out to other sections of the population. Nor has the political leadership taken over the reigns of the agitation which is yet to evolve into a countrywide, simultaneous, mass movement. It did take that turn for a while in the aftermath of May 12, the Karachi mayhem and another booster was provided by the Pemra ordinance that brought journalists out on to the streets. The media seems to have coalesced (by agreeing not to give live coverage to the CJP's convoy), as a quid to the pro quo of the withdrawal of Pemra's amendment ordinance.

This is how the movements go with twists and turns and ups and downs. The most important thing is how far it will survive and how far it will succeed in winning over greater sections of the population. If it does and the Musharraf administration fails to control it, then it is only a matter of months before the obituary of this regime will be written on the streets of Pakistan. Yet, it will not be a revolutionary change that will finally seal the role of the armed forces in politics. The army will still be the arbiter (to compensate for the weakness of the mass movement and still not fully vindicated two former prime ministers in the eyes of the people) in the transition to democracy. The revolutionary change with a new set of untainted leaders is still not on the horizon. It will still be a substantive change in favour of democracy that will sideline the extremists and keep Pakistan on a democratic track. The agenda and direction for this change has already been set by the bars which is liberal-constitutional and republican. And no republican agenda can succeed without going along with the international consensus against terrorism and uprooting of the Taliban from Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan. This is what Ms Bhutto is trying to reassure the international community of, but widely misunderstood at home due to her back-channel with Musharraf.

On the other hand, if the balance of forces does not decisively turn against President Musharraf, he will still not be able to keep power the way he wants to. If he stands firm on keeping his uniform while contesting from the current assemblies at the fag end of their tenure, then the focus of the whole movement will be against this discredited mode of self-perpetuation of authoritarian rule. Therefore, the time for mass agitation will be between September and October and all the parties will join hands for a joint action. Mass resignation will follow mass agitation. Till that time the bars will continue to keep the streets on an agitation course.

But if Musharraf reads the writing on the wall, he can take major steps to diffuse the whole situation by taking some bitter but realistic decisions. He can withdraw the reference against the CJP and call for a roundtable conference, as suggested by farsighted Mushahid Hussain. But sane voices from within are always dubbed as capitulation. The course the General is likely to take is to stand up for the fulfilment of his wish. But he is left with little choices. His regime is fast sliding down. His support among the international community is declining. Today they are saying that fair and free elections are the priority, tomorrow they will have to admit that they are not possible under him. The party that he had built has proved its futility. He is now being increasingly seen as a liability, despite having taken brave and wise decisions of reversing pro-Taliban policy and promoting the peace process with India.

The main question right now is what is in store for Pakistan, nationally and globally, after the new elections, with or without Musharraf. The political leadership has to answer this pivotal question before vying for Musharraf's removal. If the Musharraf project has failed to de-Ziaite Pakistan, eliminate the scourge of terrorism, bring good governance, ensure fundamental rights and strengthen liberal values and institutions, the aspirants for the next regime must unequivocally state their future policy on all these issues.



Email: imtiazalampak@yahoo.com

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=61094

__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.

The crisis in Pakistan: The end of Musharraf era


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

__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.

The general’s final chance

By Javid Husain
THE events of the past few months, especially the judicial crisis, the tragic developments of May 12 in Karachi resulting in the death of nearly 50 people, the carnage associated with the mishandling of the Lal Masjid affair by the government, and the subsequent spate of suicide attacks leading to a huge loss of life in the tribal areas, Swat, Islamabad and Hub have brought home the sheer incompetence of the Musharraf government to ensure law and order in the country and provide security to the citizens.

On the external front, the aggravating crisis in Pakistan-Afghanistan relations and the veiled US threats of military action against Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan have shown the weakness of the regime’s foreign policy.

These developments have conclusively proved once again that the present fragile and narrowly-based military-led political dispensation lacks the ingredients necessary for restoring internal peace and stability, and for overcoming the grave external challenges facing Pakistan.

The fundamental weakness of the Musharraf regime lies in its non-representative character compounded by questions about its legitimacy because of the manner in which it came into power by overthrowing a democratically elected government on October 12, 1999. The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court reinstating the Chief Justice, Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, and setting aside the presidential reference against him has robbed the present regime of the moral authority to rule the country.

One would have assumed that in the face of the grave challenges facing his regime, General Musharraf would take steps to give a modicum of political legitimacy to his rule. Nothing of the sort has happened. In fact, what one sees is continued defiance on the part of Gen Musharraf and his minions of the will of the people of Pakistan who want to rule themselves through their chosen representatives.

At a meeting with newspaper editors and senior journalists on July 18, General Musharraf once again trotted out the stale doctrine of “unity of command”, which is a cover for his authoritarianism and concentration of all powers in his own hands.In a democratic set-up, there is reliance instead on separation of powers and a system of checks and balances to prevent any organ of the state from exceeding the limits of its legitimate authority.

But then, these concepts are beyond the comprehension of a military man used to issuing orders rather than holding political negotiations to resolve difficult political issues through consensus-building at the national level. The fact that the general has learnt nothing from the events of the recent past is also apparent from his stated intention to seek election to the post of the president from the present assemblies without taking off his uniform.

The country is faced right now with a confrontation between the forces of democracy and those of dictatorship who want to deny the people of Pakistan their right to govern themselves. The forces of dictatorship consider the people to be incapable of taking destiny in their own hands, and find justification for various forms of “guided democracy” as a solution.

It has been the misfortune of the country to be ruled by the proponents of this point of view in the form of overt or disguised military rule during most of its history. General Musharraf’s rule undoubtedly belongs to this category despite the trappings of democracy attached to it.

It is ironical that General Musharraf and his supporters justify the new local government system as a form of empowering people at the local level, but are reluctant to allow the same people to govern their affairs at the national level through elected representatives.

This is symptomatic of the thinking of the colonial power and the system of diarchy during the pre-independence days in which the people had a share in the running of local affairs but the larger issues of security, war, peace, administration and development were fully under the control of the colonial power.

It is time our rulers got rid of this colonial thinking and the self-serving notions of their indispensability. The people of Pakistan who established this country through the exercise of their vote under the leadership of the Quaid-i-Azam deserve better.There is no denying the fact that the country also faces a tussle between the forces of extremism, obscurantism and retrogression and those of moderation, enlightenment and progress.

It is equally true that Pakistan’s salvation, and, indeed, the salvation of the entire Muslim world, lies in adopting the path of moderation and enlightenment. But this path cannot be adopted in a system of dictatorship and in a climate of tyranny and oppression. In fact, genuine democracy in the modern world, and at this juncture in human history, is an indispensable condition for progress and enlightenment.

Therefore, those of our leaders who are trying to reach a deal with the current military government in the hope of coming to power are making a grave mistake for which they will have to pay a heavy political price. They compound their mistake when they try to strengthen their claim to return to power on the basis of support by the US and the UK. There cannot be anything more insulting for the people of Pakistan.

As the struggle for a free and independent judiciary leading to the reinstatement of the Chief Justice of Pakistan shows, the people of Pakistan are quite capable of taking their destiny in their own hands and overcoming the barriers on their way. What they need is well-motivated leadership to guide their energies in the right direction.

The legal fraternity provided this leadership during the judicial crisis when the generals tried unsuccessfully to browbeat the Chief Justice. The CJP’s rejection of the demand for his resignation goes to his credit, especially as he could not have had any expectation of the resolute challenge later mounted by the lawyers against this attempt on the part of the executive to subdue the judiciary.

The fact that the legal fraternity rose to the occasion, thus adding a new and welcome chapter in the history of Pakistan’s political development, is a matter of which it can be justly proud.

It again goes to the credit of the legal community that they have vowed to continue their struggle for the independence of the judiciary, the restoration of genuine democracy and the return of the armed forces to the barracks to focus on their professional duties in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the political parties have collectively lagged far behind the lawyers. The declaration adopted by the APC in London was a step in the right direction although the reports of differences at the conference weakened its impact. It remains to be seen whether the political parties can now put their act together and launch an effective movement for the restoration of genuine democracy in the country.

In the wake of the landmark judgment by the Supreme Court reinstating the Chief Justice, the country is poised to make a clean break from its past that has been marked by military rule and political instability, and make a new beginning distinguished by genuine and undiluted democracy, supremacy of the law and the Constitution, justice, progress and enlightenment.

Only a government that comes into power through free and fair elections in a genuine democratic framework and therefore enjoys popular support can overcome the grave challenges facing the country internally and externally.

President Musharraf is now confronted with stark strategic choices. He can either stay the course as has been his wont in the past and continue to make tactical adjustments in the face of a situation which demands strategic decisions. This is a sure way to prolong the nation’s agony and go down in history as his other military predecessors have. He can rest assured that historians will have few kind words to write about him if he chooses this course.

The other strategic choice before him is that of initiating a process of national reconciliation with a view to restoring a genuine democratic order in the country. This is also the demand of moderation and enlightenment.

If he chooses this path, he should immediately convene a conference of all political leaders including those abroad to reach a consensus on the restoration of the 1973 Constitution with those changes on which a consensus can be reached among the political parties, empowerment of the election commission and the holding of free and fair elections to be followed by the election of a president without the uniform.

The armed forces under the new set-up would perform their professional duties under the command of the federal government and refrain from any involvement in political activities as required by the Constitution. The political parties will also have to follow the rules of the game as is the practice in other democratic countries.

This is General Musharraf’s final chance to redeem himself. Let us see whether he has the wisdom and the courage to make the right choice at this defining moment in our history.

The writer is a former ambassador.
E-mail: javid_husain@yahoo.com

http://www.dawn.com/2007/07/30/op.htm

__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.

By Sayeed Hasan Khan & Kurt Jacobsen
IS Pervez Musharraf on his way out? Don’t count on it. You might not like the consequences even if he were. In March, Musharraf demanded the resignation of the Supreme Court Chief Justice. The Chief Justice refused.

Clashes ignited in mid-May when henchmen from Musharraf’s ally, the MQM, prevented the Chief Justice from leaving Karachi airport to address a bar association meeting. (He spurned the government’s offer of a helicopter). Dozens of people were killed and scores wounded.

Street demonstrations seek full restoration of democracy, we are told, with cricket hero Imran Khan leading the charge (from overseas). Democracy is coming to Pakistan, and not a moment too soon. For Pakistan is endangered by burgeoning religious sectarianism, as evidenced by the Lal Masjid siege and its bloody consequences in Islamabad. Media commentators solemnly say this spells an end to Musharraf’s misrule and fooling around with the mullahs.

In July in London Imran Khan’s tiny party Tehrik-i-Insaf joined hands with former prime minister Nawaz Sharif of the PML (N) which, however, happens to be the party most inclined historically to do deals with the mullahs. Benazir Bhutto of the PPP stayed away, partly because she has taken a ‘no mullahs” stand. Bhutto reportedly also was negotiating with Musharraf for a deal to restore her to political life in Pakistan. Things aren’t quite what they seem in most media reports.Indeed, every political player tried at one time or another to reach an understanding with the religious zealots, which is why Musharraf did not attack the Lal Masjid earlier than he did. But, contrary to media images, the principal anti-Musharraf forces in Pakistan are the mullahs, augmented by small regional and nationalist parties operating in Balochistan and the NWFP. The most extreme clerics waged hyper-puritanical campaigns for years, raiding video shops, smashing satellite dishes, shutting down alleged brothels.

All this has been leaking lately into Islamabad via the Lal Masjid. These hidebound mullahs are the least progressive group imaginable, principally concerned with propagating Sharia laws. And yet these are the key people Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif are making common cause with, in the name of democratic values.

In the brutal burlesque played out at the Lal Masjid, Musharraf gingerly negotiated with two mullah brothers to tamp down their embarrassing excesses. Joining this mollifying mission earlier this year was government minister Ejazul Haq, a son of former dictator Zia, the man who installed the father of the two mullah brothers in the mosque in the first place.

The siege revolved around a small fanatic home-grown movement bent on cleansing the country of certain kinds of vice, evincing a narrow view which most urban Pakistanis do not share. Nearly nine out of 10 Pakistanis vote for the three majority parties, when they get the chance.

Imran Khan says that Pakistan’s elites are corrupt, although all along he has associated with select members. H was a caustic critic of former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Now Khan and Sharif cheerfully embrace in order to back the Chief Justice, whose was recently restored to his seat by the Supreme Court. What is going on and why?

Apart from a few exceptions, such as the restoration of the Chief Justice, a pattern of judicial submissiveness to the government formed after partition. Pakistan’s leadership ruled through the British Colonial Act (1935), nipped and tucked to suit their needs. After the death of Jinnah, the bureaucracy and the army were the strongest forces. After the crumbling of the political process in 1953-54, leading bureaucrat Iskander Mirza — in league with the army — became the first president.

After two years, General Ayub Khan deposed him. Successor General Yahya Khan in 1970 ordered the first free elections. In West Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto got the most seats, but East Pakistan was swept by the Awami League. West Pakistan was in no humour to share power. The result was the debacle which ended in the creation of Bangladesh in 1971.

Bhutto’s high jinks eventually ignited a mass movement against him. The result was Zia taking over. The judiciary was unequivocally subservient to the executive. Zia hanged Bhutto with court connivance and, without a peep from the West which was pouring in money and arms, he started his Islamicisation campaign.

Zia happily played US ally during the 1980s Soviet-Afghan war, but was killed in 1988. Elections took place. Benazir and Sharif each took two turns in power — launching selective if justified corruption investigations of one another. Musharraf refers with contempt to both leaders’ kleptocratic tendencies.

All this time the judiciary approved all the doings of the government. This is the sort of intermittent democracy Pakistan displayed. Still, it is democracy of a sort.

Under investigation during his second term, Sharif unleashed political goons on the Supreme Court until the Chief Justice stepped aside. This same Sharif today nobly backs a different Supreme Court justice. (In the 1990s Sharif had declared Pakistan should have a regime like the Taliban). Musharraf, after ousting Sharif in 1999, became a pariah but after 9/11 America needed him. The US propped up Zia because they needed him to train and arm groups like the Taliban against the USSR and now they needed Musharraf against the Taliban. The first collaboration created jihadis and the present one is required to fight jihadis. Anyone who fails to appreciate these events, their connections, and the motives behind them, cannot begin to understand the “war on terror”.

Musharraf acted because the judge had impeded his orders for privatisations and allegedly exerted undue influence for favours (getting a son appointed to the police service). When he refused to resign, the lawyers’ lobby deemed this was the best time to fight the government. Insofar as the Chief Justice is concerned they succeeded, although doing so as much in street actions as in the courts.

What of Musharraf? There are no mass movements in the streets as in the waning days of Ayub Khan or Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. The Lal Masjid aftermath, despite the recent bombing, is not going to topple Musharraf. Comparisons to the Golden Temple in Amritsar in 1984 are deeply misplaced. The stakes are not even remotely the same.

Musharraf is the only reliably secular man at the top. Western powers will not ditch his policy of ‘enlightened moderation’. Musharraf’s rivals just aren’t that appetising. Anyway, the major Pakistani players want the Americans to sort out the game in their favour. The US State Department will be content with a coalition of PPP, MQM and a fraction of the Muslim League (mostly already in government) if this arrangement provides stability. So most likely, a deal will be worked out whereby Musharraf is re-elected president by the National Assembly, the Senate and the four provincial assemblies, which act as an electoral college and national elections follow before the end of 2007. Shedding his uniform would be viewed as a sign of weakness if Musharraf does so before the next elections.

The current conflict reflects badly on all parties. Musharraf was wrong to remove the Chief Justice in advance of a Judicial Council’s investigation. The lawyers are wrong to advocate that the Chief Justice be cleared, whatever the evidence against him. Musharraf, as he announced he would, accepted the Supreme Court judgment. His wisest course is to do nothing more to aggravate the situation.

The best prospect for a progressive secular coalition is President Musharraf reinstalled (minus epaulettes) plus a coalition of the PPP and the MQM along with Pathan and Baloch nationalist parties. While business is happy under Musharraf, there’s a long list of unfulfilled objectives regarding poverty, developmental projects, and anti-corruption measures to be tackled. So Pakistan will indeed enjoy the fruits of formal democracy again, but particularly here one should be careful what one wishes for.

http://www.dawn.com/2007/08/03/op.htm#2

__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.

Tough times for Musharraf

Azam Khalil
President General Pervez Musharraf is not used to a hostile political environment; his years in office since he booted out Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in a bloodless coup have been pretty easy. In fact he was catapulted on the international stage when he chose to support the Americans in what they call "their war on terror," this has now degenerated into a designed campaign against Muslim countries and the religion of Islam.

Politics was never a cup of tea for the Pakistani general who believed and pursued simple solutions for complex problems. He was innocent up against trained crooks. After the passage of so many years he has not learned much. The initiative touted for the settlement of the Kashmir problem with India failed to make any headway because there was never any support from the major powers that matter in today's world. Then came the proposition to mediate between Israel and the Palestinians. This proposal was snubbed by the Israeli leadership and found no tangible support among the Arab world.

Musharraf also wanted to play an active role within the OIC and came up with some "good" proposals that would strengthen the voice of the Muslim countries. Again all his efforts resulted in frustration because many Muslim countries are ruled by persons who are lackeys of the US administration and were not prepared to annoy their American masters. The Pakistani foreign office that was to assist Musharraf in these initiatives is known by the nick name of the foreigners' office.

While playing in the international arena Musharraf repeated the mistake that was committed by late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and that was to allow his domestic support to erode. This has now put the president in a tight corner and with each passing day the odds are stacking up against him so that his difficulties will increase and in the end it will become almost impossible for him to come out or even survive politically. Musharraf has no one to blame except himself for the present crisis situation that has enveloped the country and his future.

The president made several political mistakes by compromising on principles and closing his doors on mainstream political elements. The result was a single vote government with ministers who were better in jail than in cabinet denting the credibility of the president. Now again by delaying an understanding with the PPP to the last minute, the president has squandered the chance to gain some of the lost ground in the slippery field of politics.

The method now chosen has once again raised more questions than the answers available for the "understanding" struck with Benazir Bhutto. The direction taken by the president was known to many when the president asked Hasan Waseem Afzal to make Benazir "comfortable" just before some of the courts hearing the cases of the ex-prime minister were about to adjudicate on them. The crunch came when the forty odd paged new reference that was to be filed before an accountability court in Islamabad was stopped on the intervention of the president.

In case Musharraf had reached an understanding with Benazir and to a certain extent Nawaz Sharif somewhere in 2006 or early 2007, he could have won some concessions that cannot be obtained by the president at this stage. Another important issue was the lack of teamwork by the PML-Q that was following a classic example, "Every man for himself and God for us all."

The president was right to be annoyed with the entire PML-Q leadership when he admonished them for leaving him in the lurch whenever a testing political situation arose in the country. Here too the policy of dithering and not cutting political deadwood cost the president dearly.

The choice he made in appointing Shaukat Aziz as prime minister was incorrect because the entire political leadership considers him to be an outsider with no stakes. The policy of the prime minister to try to pin down Punjab's chief minister as a competitor and not carry him along as an important team member also took a heavy political toll that has hurt the president as the disintegration of the king's party suggests.

The preparation and handling of the reference against the chief justice was yet another example of the ineptitude and criminal misconduct on the part of some government functionaries, but again no heads rolled landing all the muck on the president.

The most serious drawback for the president continues to be his team of media managers who can rightly be called media mis-managers. No serious effort was made by any of them to spin the damage back into control. Much could have been done on the issue of suicide bombings by releasing evidence as to what forces were behind the campaign to destabilise and malign Pakistan. Perhaps papers given by the government to General Abizaid of the United States should be released to prove the level of foreign involvement and the conduct of the American government.

Musharraf has come under attack by the Americans at a very bad time; the American president has signed a legal proposal that is outright hostility towards this country. Senior US administration officials along with presidential hopefuls were openly issuing threats of military intervention in Pakistan. One of them has demanded the bombing of Islam's holy places; some may call this sheer madness. However, this clearly shows the mindset of American politicians both Republican and Democratic.

So what should be the response of the Pakistani government? The least Musharraf can do is to take the entire nation into confidence and in case the politicians refuse to sit with him, he should come on TV and address the people of this country. He must tell them the truth.

For the present any political understanding with the PPP or PML (N) would be in national interest because any weakening of the army as an institution is detrimental for the country. In case the present trend is not arrested, it will not only make the enemies of the country strong but could subsequently damage the integrity of the country. The country requires reconciliation and not confrontation.

Another area that needs to proceed with utmost care is that of the judiciary, the judges one hopes will not allow any adventurism on the part of the politicians who may try to misuse the glory and independence of the judiciary for short-sighted benefits. The lawyers and the judges have won a great and deserving victory for their institution, they must now consolidate what they have won and not get carried away otherwise a new and unsavoury situation might emerge that will be in nobody's interest.

Musharraf must also keep an eye on history and do everything possible to create and leave a legacy for which he can be proud afterwards. He must remember that one day will come when the president leaves the scene, this is a critical balance and all decisions that are made by him today will have great repercussions for the entire country. Given that the president has no sound political advice coming to him, his decisions are going to be tough. The next few weeks will show whether he rises to meet these challenges.



The writer is a Lahore based columnist. Email: zarnatta@hotmail.com


http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=67598

__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.