Jamal Hasan
She came like a whirlwind causing a little tsunami in the US capital. The day was March 15, 2011 and the place of occurrence was the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars.
This Woodrow Wilson Center already became controversial to many expatriate Bangladeshis. A few months ago, Dirk Moses, Woodrow Wilson Australian scholar brought his revisionist theory of the Bangladesh genocide in another seminar called “The secession of East Pakistan in 1971 and the question of genocide”. Moreover, William Milam, the Senior Policy Scholar of the Center, a former US Ambassador to Pakistan and Bangladesh is now under deeper scrutiny. According to some observers, this former American diplomat cherishes strong sympathy for the Pakistani ruling elite. Not too long ago Milam and Bose co-authored an essay in favor of selling American F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan.
Sarmila Bose’s intellectual and academic research centers on one agenda. That is to blemish the Bengali nationalists and glorify the brutal regime of late Pakistani general Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan. For the last several years, in the academic world Sarmila Bose’s pro-Yahya regime slant was so well orchestrated that it got very receptive audience in the Pakistani press. Even the so-called Pakistani liberal media, including the Daily Times of Lahore and Karachi’s Dawn became the favorable launching pads of disseminating her distorted version of the events of 1971. Quite undoubtedly, to many of the retired Pakistani army personnel directly involved in mass killing in the erstwhile East Pakistan, this Bengali Hindu woman’s academic work appeared as a manna from heaven!
We are familiar with the term “self hating Jews”. There may be a few anti-Semite Jews present in the academia. Who knows, there could be one or two Hitler lover Jewish scholars roaming in the academic world also. Sarmila Bose seems to be the only academician of Hindu Bengali heritage who took the painful responsibility of soft-selling a barbaric army dictatorship, which was viciously brutal and merciless to the Hindu inhabitants of the then East Pakistan.
In 1971 she was only twelve year old she wrote in one essay. She might have seen many Hindu refugees taking shelter in her Kolkata neighborhood. Although she was in the pre-adolescent age, she was supposedly a witness to calculated extermination of religious minority on the other side of the border. She wrote in one of her revisionist essays earlier, “Growing up in Calcutta in West Bengal, India, I heard stories about the Pakistan army raping and killing Bengali women during the 1971 war.” She did not stop there; she further wrote, “This paper seeks to bring to scholarly and public scrutiny the deeply problematic representations of sexual violence in narratives of the 1971 war which I discovered in the course of my broader research on the 1971 conflict.1 That rape occurred in East Pakistan in 1971 has never been in any doubt. Every war is accompanied by sexual violence against women. In the case of Bangladesh, the Pakistan army itself has not denied that instances of rape took place. The question is, what was the true extent of rape, who were its victims and who the perpetrators, and was there any systematic “policy” of rape by any party as opposed to opportunistic sexual crimes in times of war.”
On 15th March, 2011 book event in the Woodrow Wilson Center promoting her another revisionist book, “Dead Reckoning: Memories of Bangladesh War”, Sarmila Bose’s premise was very similar to all of her earlier academic works. In the thirty minute time slot allocated to her she taunted the Bengali nationalists and the Bengali nationalistic aspiration with her subdued sarcastic rhetoric. She said, “Bengalis used such semantics like Hanadar Bahini, Noroposhu, Punjabi army to denote the members of the Pakistani army”. She shed her crocodile tear speaking about the brutal leader of the Pakistani killing squad, General Yahya, “Yahya did not personally harbor prejudice against the Bengalis”. The audience was spellbound. Of course, many of us were outraged to observe such shameless act of a hired assassin, who simply played the role of a paid agent of the perpetrators of a crime against humanity.
R. J. Rummel, the notable author of genocide describes the perception of Pakistani army officers towards the Bengalis in his book “Death by government” this way, “These ‘willing executioners’ were fuelled by an abiding anti-Bengali racism, especially against the Hindu minority. "Bengalis were often compared with monkeys and chickens” said Pakistani General Niazi, 'It was a low lying land of low lying people.' The Hindus among the Bengalis were as Jews to the Nazis: scum and vermin that [should] best be exterminated. As to the Moslem Bengalis, they were to live only on the sufferance of the soldiers: any infraction, any suspicion cast on them, any need for reprisal, could mean their death. And the soldiers were free to kill at will. The journalist Dan Coggin quoted one Punjabi captain as telling him, 'We can kill anyone for anything. We are accountable to no one.' This is the arrogance of Power.”
Sarmila Bose showing her “balanced way” of being a so-called objective historiographer skewed very meticulously the events of 1971. A reader after reading her essays may wonder if the Pakistani army were the only villains regarding extermination of Bengali Hindus. Before coming to the Woodrow Wilson Center’s book event we were exposed to one of her such slanted essays titled “ANATOMY OF VIOLENCE: An Analysis of Civil War in East Pakistan in 1971”, which she wrote a few years ago. She describes on the chapter of atrocity on Hindu population this way, “The minority Hindus, perceived by many in government, in the armed forces and the majority population as pro-India and a traitorous force within the country, were in a particularly vulnerable position during the civil war. Many Hindu villagers in Khulna, for instance, spoke of their harassment at the hands of local Muslims, which got serious enough for them to decide to seek refuge in India. Thousands of them collected what belongings they could and went by boat to a village called Chuknagar, from where they went by road towards the Indian border. At Chuknagar they were relieved of their boats and many of their belongings by local Muslims there, usually for a pittance or nothing. The harassment, hounding out, and dispossession of the Hindu refugees in this area took a turn for the worse on 20 May. On that day, according to numerous eye-witnesses and survivors, a small unit, comprising only 20-25 men, arrived from the direction of Jessore and killed a very large number of adult male Hindu refugees among the thousands thronging the river bank and bazaar of Chuknagar. Once again, women and children were not harmed. Upon the departure of the unit, large scale looting of the refugees' belongings, cash and jewelry, appears to have been conducted by the locals, who disposed of the bodies by throwing them into the river.[27]”
There are numerous instances where the Pakistani occupation force, while capturing a village were selectively destroying Hindu habitats. The Washington based World Bank official Dr. Ziauddin Choudhury was a young civilian officer of the government of Pakistan in 1971. In a recent essay “Forgotten Women of the 1971 War” published in the Daily Star from Dhaka he chronicled, “One afternoon the Army Major walked into my office and informed me that he had reports that a neighbouring village was harbouring a good number of "Hindu miscreants" with "arms". He said he had reports that the armed gangs were plotting to attack the army, and that it was necessary to sort the place out. I knew it was futile to plead with him without jeopardizing my own safety; however, I suggested that his report be further verified by the police. He looked at me as though I had lost my mind! My concern was also elsewhere. My second officer, a seasoned provincial service officer, was a Hindu. I had taken pains to keep him away from any possible encounter with the Pakistan Army, as we were already acquainted with the penchant of this murderous force to summarily dispose of members of the Hindu community, government official or not. A week after the arrival of the Army in Munshiganj, the officer had stated his intention to me to move to a nearby village where the town Hindus had congregated. He moved his family to this village even though I had warned him that moving to a predominantly Hindu village might not be a good idea. The army was more prone to attack such places in the pretext of miscreant cleansing, since according to the Pakistan Army, all Hindus were suspected "miscreants".
We have millions of witnesses still alive who could support the theory that the Pakistani army systematically and methodically targeted the Bengali Hindus to cleanse the land of the pure of “infidels”. Many of us who were adult enough to witness firsthand the 1971 tragedy knew there was a systematic policy of annihilation of religious minority in our native land. Sarmila Bose and Dirk Moses put much of the burden of violence on the inter-ethnic conflict, i.e, the riots among Bengalis and Biharis. But they failed, either deliberately or inadvertently, to do much investigative work in their research methodology to verify the existing dominant view that the ruling Pakistani military junta of 1971 following the pattern of the Nazi regime of Germany conducted a calculated policy of genocide in the erstwhile East Pakistan.
Those revisionist historians promoted by the Woodrow Wilson Center were emphasizing on the bloody episodes of the Bengali-Bihari civilian conflicts subsiding the bigger picture of the killing by state machinery. Sarmila in her presentation on the March 15th gave a self contradictory argument. She said, the violence between two different linguistic groups in the eastern part of Pakistan reminded her of the conflict in the Balkans. We all know there was continuous blood letting between the ordinary Serbs, Croats and the Muslim population. In addition to that, there was a perpetrated genocide conducted by individuals like Radovan Karadzic, a Bosnian Serb. The International Criminal Court decided to prosecute Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, who happened to be in position of power in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Oxford scholar deviated from her own argument of comparing the two conflict situations by explicitly soft selling the marauding Pakistani army this way, "the atrocity was committed from two sides of the war. There were war criminals on both sides - perception varies depending on which side someone belongs to." In this particular case, she equated violence among civilians and the methodical pogrom conducted by a state machinery. In her short lecture Sarmila not only distorted the genesis of Bangladesh movement, she outwardly misrepresented the events linked to it. She said, the noncooperation movement in March 1971 was a violent one, which is far from truth.
Not too long ago, the military on the streets of Pakistan under Pervez Musharraf regime refrained from crossing a “red line”. That was the imaginary boundary of not going for wanton killing of unarmed civilians. Pervez Musharraf’s restraint was not manifested in his fellow officers’ game plan of the earlier era on the fateful night of March 25, 1971. Dr. Abdus Sattar Khan, a Pratt and Whitney scientist based in Florida told me his account of that dark night. Dr. Khan was a lecturer in Dhaka University. He miraculously survived the ordeal but witnessed the massacre in the Dhaka University Teachers Quarter first hand. He saw an officer was relaxingly smoking cigarette on the ground as his subordinate soldiers were conducting the killing of the academicians. In the Woodrow Wilson Center event Sarmila Bose expressed her clear antipathy towards the Bengalis of Pakistan because they (the Bengalis) called the Pakistani army as occupation army and noroposhu (human animal). Alas! Sarmila was only a twelve year old naive young girl who failed to understand that after March 25 of 1971 most of the Pakistani army crossed the “red line”, which in later year another Pakistani army ruler Pervez Musharraf avoided in a different setting. In the year 1971, the average Pakistani soldier was immensely brutal to Bengalis, especially the Hindus. The reality was most of the occupation army behaved like a typical barbaric occupation force losing all human qualities.
Most recently one of my close relatives told me his anecdote. In 1971, he was the Chief Engineer of the Pakistan Television in the DIT Building, Dhaka. The TV office was well secured area, part of which was guarded by an auxiliary force called the Militia. One such militia was a nineteen year old man from the North West Frontier Province in the then West Pakistan. This young Pathan jawan had come back from his tour of duty in the “war front”. He told my relative in Urdu, “This nation will not last”. My relative asked him the reason why. In his reply he gave his eyewitness account of inhuman brutality, which academicians like Sarmila Bose may think only common human being can do. The Pathan militia said, some of the jawans in the bunker on a regular basis brought three or four young women from the nearby village. They were kept in the bunker completely naked. Day after day, one after another soldier committed rape upon them. Later on the girls were shot to death. This recurring process continued presumably within the knowledge of the commanding officer. Dr. Sarmila Bose, a senior research scholar at Oxford did not have time to delve the extent of brutality committed by her favorite patrons among the Pakistani army retirees.
Susan Brownmiller, the renowned American feminist and author in her book “Against our will: Men, women and rape” puts the number of women raped from 200,000 to 400,000. She wrote, “Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. ... Hit-and-run rape of large numbers of Bengali women was brutally simple in terms of logistics as the Pakistani regulars swept through and occupied the tiny, populous land ..." Brownmiller quotes a description of one such assault which targeted a recently-married woman, as reported by Aubrey Menen: “Two [Pakistani soldiers] went into the room that had been built for the bridal couple. The others stayed behind with the family, one of them covering them with his gun. They heard a barked order, and the bridegroom's voice protesting. Then there was silence until the bride screamed. Then there was silence again, except for some muffled cries that soon subsided. In a few minutes one of the soldiers came out, his uniform in disarray. He grinned to his companions. Another soldier took his place in the extra room. And so on, until all the six had raped the belle of the village. Then all six left, hurriedly. The father found his daughter lying on the string cot unconscious and bleeding. Her husband was crouched on the floor, kneeling over his vomit.”
During the question and answer session at the Wilson Center we had asked the revisionist historian many poignant questions. After the session I met her personally. I did not feel she had any remorse helping the cause of a brutal regime, the main protagonists committing a crime against humanity in a forgotten war. My impression was she was merely a hired assassin ordered to accomplish a mission. I am not sure if she would be successful in the long run.
______________________
Jamal Hasan writes from USA.
Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pakistan. Show all posts
Monday, March 21, 2011
Friday, March 13, 2009
More than a mutiny
More than a mutiny
Saurabh Shukla
March 7, 2009
Source: India Today
The plot of senseless blood letting in Dhaka is thickening. And as the two-month-old Government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina battles to bring stability to the country following the barbaric killing of over 140 top Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) officers along with their family members in Dhaka on February 25, reports of a Pakistan-sponsored plot to assassinate her are gaining credence.
Increasingly intelligence is uncovering that the original plan was to assassinate Hasina and army chief Moeen U. Ahmed on February 24, but due to lack of coordination, the required ammunition couldn’t be smuggled into the Durbar area at the BDR headquarters where Hasina had gone a day before the mutiny. The plan was reportedly hatched at the behest of the ISI which is concerned with Hasina’s moderate outlook.
On February 25, a group of BDR junior commissioned officers, lined up the top brass of Bangladesh’s border guards and killed them. The brutality of the killing was shocking as the bodies of the officers and their families were dumped into manholes and mass graves. While some of the ringleaders of the coup and their accomplices have been arrested, over 1,000 BDR personnel have been charged by the Hasina Government.
A confidential report prepared by South Block suggests that Pakistani intelligence was behind the mutiny. The report claims “both Indian and some international intelligence agencies have received indisputable proof of the involvement of Salauddin Chowdhury—an influential BNP MP and a long standing Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agent of influence in Bangladesh with a strong criminal mafia nexus—in the entire episode”.
Chowdhury, a prominent shipping magnate, was a close associate and parliamentary secretary to former premier Khaleda Zia. His name also figured in the Chittagong arms haul in 2004, in which a lethal cargo of arms was unloaded for terrorist activities in India. But Chowdhury has denied such charges.
However, exclusive details available with India Today suggest that intelligence agencies had intercepted a telephone call from Pakistan’s defence attaché in Dhaka, Sajaad Rasool, to a contact in the Pakistani consulate in Dubai. Another intercept revealed Rasool was in contact with Chowdhury.
According to sources, the Pakistani defence attaché monitored the situation from the Gulshan area of Dhaka and was in constant touch with his handlers in Pakistan.
In fact, on February 25 he knew the precise details about the plot unfolding inside the BDR headquarters in Pilkhana. At 12.30 pm, Rasool made a call to the ISI headquarters in Islamabad reporting that DG BDR Major-General Shakeel Ahmed had been killed.
The big question is, how the Pakistani defence attaché knew what was happening inside when even senior officers of the Bangladesh Army and the Government were in the dark. Other intercepts that confirm the involvement of the ISI, include a series of phone calls made by some key Jamaat-e- Islami (JeI) leaders to their ISI contacts in Dubai, London and Islamabad updating them on the operation.
According to the report, the BDR was used by the plotters because resentment has been brewing in the lower ranks. Besides, the aim was to ensure a takeover by pro-Pakistan elements in the Bangladesh Army. So smooth was the planning that no intelligence agency got a whiff of the plot. Chowdhury allegedly used a former DG of BDR, Major-General Fazlur Rehman, as a frontman to instigate the troops.
Chowdhury is suspected to have paid Taka 40 crore (Rs 30 crore) to Fazlur Rahman, who in turn is said to have paid Taka 5 crore to four deputy assistant directors of BDR. While almost 400 sepoys were paid Taka 5 lakh, the key among them were paid Taka 50 lakh each, according to the report.
For India that has a vital stake in the stability of a moderate regime in Dhaka, the developments were worrying. In fact, on February 28, India had begun preparations to evacuate Hasina. External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee was in touch with Hasina and assured her of Indian support. Sources say New Delhi alerted Dhaka.
Following this, Hasina was taken to a Bangladesh Army safehouse. Two teams of commandos were kept ready at a forward air force base in Tripura and another one in Kolkata. But when the situation turned around with the Bangladesh Army backing Hasina and the mutiny quelled, the plan was shelved.
But the big question is why the ISI plotted to destabilise the Government. The reason is, compared to the fundamentalist regime of Khaleda Zia, Hasina’s government is considered to be moderate and has cracked down on Islamists. Sources say Pakistani intelligence fanned the conspiracy as it feared that many of its key assets could be tried for war crimes committed in 1971.
The Hasina Government had moved a resolution in Parliament last month to punish criminals of the 1971 war, something her party had promised in its election manifesto. Sources say JEI leaders Amir Rahman Nizami and Ali Ahsan Mujahid, who are alleged war criminals, provided logistical support to the mutiny.
The ISI plotted to kill Hasina as Islamabad has been uneasy with the Hasina regime’s policies and it’s perceived proximity to India. In fact the crisis in Dhaka should be another reason why India and Bangladesh should work together closely, especially on security issues. Besides, India has to align with the international community to ensure the stability of Hasina’s regime which is pivotal for India’s security concerns.
Experts say that New Delhi and Dhaka should use this opportunity to sensitise the world that Pakistan is the fulcrum of terrorism, and till its agencies, like the ISI, are neutralised, the world, beginning with our neighbourhood, cannot be free of terrorism.
Saurabh Shukla
March 7, 2009
Source: India Today
The plot of senseless blood letting in Dhaka is thickening. And as the two-month-old Government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina battles to bring stability to the country following the barbaric killing of over 140 top Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) officers along with their family members in Dhaka on February 25, reports of a Pakistan-sponsored plot to assassinate her are gaining credence.
Increasingly intelligence is uncovering that the original plan was to assassinate Hasina and army chief Moeen U. Ahmed on February 24, but due to lack of coordination, the required ammunition couldn’t be smuggled into the Durbar area at the BDR headquarters where Hasina had gone a day before the mutiny. The plan was reportedly hatched at the behest of the ISI which is concerned with Hasina’s moderate outlook.
On February 25, a group of BDR junior commissioned officers, lined up the top brass of Bangladesh’s border guards and killed them. The brutality of the killing was shocking as the bodies of the officers and their families were dumped into manholes and mass graves. While some of the ringleaders of the coup and their accomplices have been arrested, over 1,000 BDR personnel have been charged by the Hasina Government.
A confidential report prepared by South Block suggests that Pakistani intelligence was behind the mutiny. The report claims “both Indian and some international intelligence agencies have received indisputable proof of the involvement of Salauddin Chowdhury—an influential BNP MP and a long standing Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agent of influence in Bangladesh with a strong criminal mafia nexus—in the entire episode”.
Chowdhury, a prominent shipping magnate, was a close associate and parliamentary secretary to former premier Khaleda Zia. His name also figured in the Chittagong arms haul in 2004, in which a lethal cargo of arms was unloaded for terrorist activities in India. But Chowdhury has denied such charges.
However, exclusive details available with India Today suggest that intelligence agencies had intercepted a telephone call from Pakistan’s defence attaché in Dhaka, Sajaad Rasool, to a contact in the Pakistani consulate in Dubai. Another intercept revealed Rasool was in contact with Chowdhury.
According to sources, the Pakistani defence attaché monitored the situation from the Gulshan area of Dhaka and was in constant touch with his handlers in Pakistan.
In fact, on February 25 he knew the precise details about the plot unfolding inside the BDR headquarters in Pilkhana. At 12.30 pm, Rasool made a call to the ISI headquarters in Islamabad reporting that DG BDR Major-General Shakeel Ahmed had been killed.
The big question is, how the Pakistani defence attaché knew what was happening inside when even senior officers of the Bangladesh Army and the Government were in the dark. Other intercepts that confirm the involvement of the ISI, include a series of phone calls made by some key Jamaat-e- Islami (JeI) leaders to their ISI contacts in Dubai, London and Islamabad updating them on the operation.
According to the report, the BDR was used by the plotters because resentment has been brewing in the lower ranks. Besides, the aim was to ensure a takeover by pro-Pakistan elements in the Bangladesh Army. So smooth was the planning that no intelligence agency got a whiff of the plot. Chowdhury allegedly used a former DG of BDR, Major-General Fazlur Rehman, as a frontman to instigate the troops.
Chowdhury is suspected to have paid Taka 40 crore (Rs 30 crore) to Fazlur Rahman, who in turn is said to have paid Taka 5 crore to four deputy assistant directors of BDR. While almost 400 sepoys were paid Taka 5 lakh, the key among them were paid Taka 50 lakh each, according to the report.
For India that has a vital stake in the stability of a moderate regime in Dhaka, the developments were worrying. In fact, on February 28, India had begun preparations to evacuate Hasina. External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee was in touch with Hasina and assured her of Indian support. Sources say New Delhi alerted Dhaka.
Following this, Hasina was taken to a Bangladesh Army safehouse. Two teams of commandos were kept ready at a forward air force base in Tripura and another one in Kolkata. But when the situation turned around with the Bangladesh Army backing Hasina and the mutiny quelled, the plan was shelved.
But the big question is why the ISI plotted to destabilise the Government. The reason is, compared to the fundamentalist regime of Khaleda Zia, Hasina’s government is considered to be moderate and has cracked down on Islamists. Sources say Pakistani intelligence fanned the conspiracy as it feared that many of its key assets could be tried for war crimes committed in 1971.
The Hasina Government had moved a resolution in Parliament last month to punish criminals of the 1971 war, something her party had promised in its election manifesto. Sources say JEI leaders Amir Rahman Nizami and Ali Ahsan Mujahid, who are alleged war criminals, provided logistical support to the mutiny.
The ISI plotted to kill Hasina as Islamabad has been uneasy with the Hasina regime’s policies and it’s perceived proximity to India. In fact the crisis in Dhaka should be another reason why India and Bangladesh should work together closely, especially on security issues. Besides, India has to align with the international community to ensure the stability of Hasina’s regime which is pivotal for India’s security concerns.
Experts say that New Delhi and Dhaka should use this opportunity to sensitise the world that Pakistan is the fulcrum of terrorism, and till its agencies, like the ISI, are neutralised, the world, beginning with our neighbourhood, cannot be free of terrorism.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
People of Bangladeshi descent struggling to survive
People of Bangladeshi descent struggling to survive
Source: The News
By Jan Khaskheli
September 06, 2008
Well off families opt for hiring of cooks who are of a Bangladeshi descent as they are famous for maintaining the quality while preparing exclusive and scrumptious delicacies.
Giving a brief history of this tradition, the activists reveal that Hindu Pundits long ago prepared a technique through research by adopting traditional methods of cooking food while giving special attention to health safety and required nutrition.
The Muslims of Bengal followed the same method and prepared even more delicious food in accordance with health and safety, reveal activists working for communities comprising people of Bangladeshi descent.
Therefore, the parliamentarians, businessmen, landlords and other well-to-do families hire people of Bangladeshi descent at their residences in the city and their villages as cooks and chefs, who prepare food according to the body’s requirement.
However, speaking about the living conditions of the community, activists reveal that the people of Bangladeshi descent do not enjoy political rights in Pakistan. A fact which can be gauged from their long term work experiences in the same places. Activists claim that the people of Bangladeshi descent are fully aware that if they commit a crime or are found guilty in any such wrongdoing they will be punished and nobody would come for their rescue in this country.
Mohammed Hussain Shaikh, a social activist struggling for protecting the rights of the community, explains, “ The endless fear created by the government organisations in the name of registering ‘aliens’ has forced most people of Bengali descent residing here to become united.”
According to him the government looks at all the people of Bangladeshi descent in the same light despite the fact that several families have been here long before the separation of East Pakistan.
“My family had migrated to Karachi in the search of livelihood in 1965 when both the East and West Pakistan were combined. I was born in 1969 and raised here in Moosa Colony, Liaquatabad Town,” expressed Shaikh.
Quoting the speech of the late Prime Minister, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Shaikh commented that Bhutto announced an official pardon for Bengali speaking people and stated that those who want to stay should be provided a citizenship equally while those who want to migrate should be allowed to do so officially, there will be no restrictions for the Bengali-speaking people living here as they are innocent and our brethren.”
“Despite this we are being humiliated at our workplaces, homes and streets and being treated like aliens, behaviour which must be condemned”, he reacted.
He said when a male is arrested by a certain law enforcement agency his family goes through a traumatic experience. Women are forced to beg and children sometimes take shelter in criminal activities to meet the domestic requirements.
“We believe that we are Pakistanis now. We celebrate the national and religious days with the similar spirit. Then why is this ill treatment being meted out to us? Why doesn’t the government recognise us and issue a permanent citizenship. What more do we need to do, to prove that we are Pakistanis?” he lamented.
Shaikh added that it seems as if the National Aliens Registration Authority (Nara) and Bangladesh Cell have been set up to keep the people of Bengali descent under pressure, depriving poor workers of their wages, arresting our youth on their way home and releasing them after acquiring bribe money.
More than 80 per cent of the community people depend on fishing. The men go to open sea while women peel shrimps at the shed in the Machhar Colony, while other Bengali people work for garment factories.
The activists complain that the local fishermen do not recognise the community as their own despite the fact that they have been associated with fishing for generations.
Hussain Shaikh claims that there are three million people of Bangladeshi descent living in different areas of the city, including Machhar Colony, Orangi Town, Noorani Basti of Korangi, Burmy Colony, Bilal Colony Landhi, Moosa Colony, Mujahid Colony, Ziaul Haq Colony, Lasi Goth, Ali Akbar Shah Goth, Ibrahim Hyderi, Ali Goth, Jumma Goth and Abbasi Nagar.
The Pakistanis of Bangladeshi descent speak the same language with different dialects. For instance, he said people called Burmese here are not from Burma, but due to their dissimilar dialect they are known as Burmese.
However, Shaikh explained that they are fighting the war of survival here, as everybody feels insecure. Therefore, the community is unable to continue their ancestral traditions. Long ago our elders used to sing Bengali wedding songs that have almost disappeared now. The community, Shaikh explained has adopted a new culture.
Speaking about their ideologies and beliefs, activists explain that the people of Bangladeshi descent use their own intelligence instead of following instructions blindly. The members of the same family might not necessarily have the same opinion on any given matter. Their inability to follow instructions and using their own creativity is in their blood, they justified.
The community arranges marriages of their members at an early age, which some times causes separations within a few years.
After an engagement the community spends two-three months in celebrating the wedding. They bring the bride to the groom’s house where a religious leader solemnises a Nikah in the presence of family friends and relatives of both the sides. Subsequently, the community artistes perform Indian, Pakistani and Bangladesh films’ songs, portraying the culture of three neighbouring countries.
Source: The News
By Jan Khaskheli
September 06, 2008
Well off families opt for hiring of cooks who are of a Bangladeshi descent as they are famous for maintaining the quality while preparing exclusive and scrumptious delicacies.
Giving a brief history of this tradition, the activists reveal that Hindu Pundits long ago prepared a technique through research by adopting traditional methods of cooking food while giving special attention to health safety and required nutrition.
The Muslims of Bengal followed the same method and prepared even more delicious food in accordance with health and safety, reveal activists working for communities comprising people of Bangladeshi descent.
Therefore, the parliamentarians, businessmen, landlords and other well-to-do families hire people of Bangladeshi descent at their residences in the city and their villages as cooks and chefs, who prepare food according to the body’s requirement.
However, speaking about the living conditions of the community, activists reveal that the people of Bangladeshi descent do not enjoy political rights in Pakistan. A fact which can be gauged from their long term work experiences in the same places. Activists claim that the people of Bangladeshi descent are fully aware that if they commit a crime or are found guilty in any such wrongdoing they will be punished and nobody would come for their rescue in this country.
Mohammed Hussain Shaikh, a social activist struggling for protecting the rights of the community, explains, “ The endless fear created by the government organisations in the name of registering ‘aliens’ has forced most people of Bengali descent residing here to become united.”
According to him the government looks at all the people of Bangladeshi descent in the same light despite the fact that several families have been here long before the separation of East Pakistan.
“My family had migrated to Karachi in the search of livelihood in 1965 when both the East and West Pakistan were combined. I was born in 1969 and raised here in Moosa Colony, Liaquatabad Town,” expressed Shaikh.
Quoting the speech of the late Prime Minister, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Shaikh commented that Bhutto announced an official pardon for Bengali speaking people and stated that those who want to stay should be provided a citizenship equally while those who want to migrate should be allowed to do so officially, there will be no restrictions for the Bengali-speaking people living here as they are innocent and our brethren.”
“Despite this we are being humiliated at our workplaces, homes and streets and being treated like aliens, behaviour which must be condemned”, he reacted.
He said when a male is arrested by a certain law enforcement agency his family goes through a traumatic experience. Women are forced to beg and children sometimes take shelter in criminal activities to meet the domestic requirements.
“We believe that we are Pakistanis now. We celebrate the national and religious days with the similar spirit. Then why is this ill treatment being meted out to us? Why doesn’t the government recognise us and issue a permanent citizenship. What more do we need to do, to prove that we are Pakistanis?” he lamented.
Shaikh added that it seems as if the National Aliens Registration Authority (Nara) and Bangladesh Cell have been set up to keep the people of Bengali descent under pressure, depriving poor workers of their wages, arresting our youth on their way home and releasing them after acquiring bribe money.
More than 80 per cent of the community people depend on fishing. The men go to open sea while women peel shrimps at the shed in the Machhar Colony, while other Bengali people work for garment factories.
The activists complain that the local fishermen do not recognise the community as their own despite the fact that they have been associated with fishing for generations.
Hussain Shaikh claims that there are three million people of Bangladeshi descent living in different areas of the city, including Machhar Colony, Orangi Town, Noorani Basti of Korangi, Burmy Colony, Bilal Colony Landhi, Moosa Colony, Mujahid Colony, Ziaul Haq Colony, Lasi Goth, Ali Akbar Shah Goth, Ibrahim Hyderi, Ali Goth, Jumma Goth and Abbasi Nagar.
The Pakistanis of Bangladeshi descent speak the same language with different dialects. For instance, he said people called Burmese here are not from Burma, but due to their dissimilar dialect they are known as Burmese.
However, Shaikh explained that they are fighting the war of survival here, as everybody feels insecure. Therefore, the community is unable to continue their ancestral traditions. Long ago our elders used to sing Bengali wedding songs that have almost disappeared now. The community, Shaikh explained has adopted a new culture.
Speaking about their ideologies and beliefs, activists explain that the people of Bangladeshi descent use their own intelligence instead of following instructions blindly. The members of the same family might not necessarily have the same opinion on any given matter. Their inability to follow instructions and using their own creativity is in their blood, they justified.
The community arranges marriages of their members at an early age, which some times causes separations within a few years.
After an engagement the community spends two-three months in celebrating the wedding. They bring the bride to the groom’s house where a religious leader solemnises a Nikah in the presence of family friends and relatives of both the sides. Subsequently, the community artistes perform Indian, Pakistani and Bangladesh films’ songs, portraying the culture of three neighbouring countries.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Moeen vs. Musharraf
Drawing parallels and lessons
Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan and Moeen U Ahmed in Bangladesh
Mahmud ur Rahman Choudhury
Source: The Bangladesh Today
August 26, 2008
What happens in Pakistan ought not to overly concern us here in Bangladesh but it does because we were once part of Pakistan and have inherited some of the worst aspects of that Country's politics and governance. The four core institutions of our State - the Judiciary and system of Justice, the system of law-enforcement and Police, the system of administration and Bureaucracy and the Military - are all direct descendents of and still display many of the characteristics of the Pakistani system. Military involvement in politics is one of these awful legacies which we in Bangladesh are still tolerating and living with.
I don't know General Pervez Musharraf personally but I have read his very interesting auto-biography, "In the Line of Fire" and I happen to know one of his very close friends from whom I heard quite a bit about the General. As for General Moeen Uddin Ahmed, I have a passing acquaintance with him, having served for 25 years in the Bangladesh Army. Both of these individuals have catapulted themselves into politics in very critical moments in their respective countries' histories and therefore deserve a closer scrutiny of their characters and their deeds so as to draw appropriate lessons for the immediate future. The Pakistani General had to let go of power when he was forced to resign from his presidency on 18 August 2008 while the Bangladeshi General still holds a firm grasp of political power or so he believes.
Starting with the Pakistani General, Pervez Musharraf was a "Muhajir", that is a person who migrated to Pakistan after the partition of the sub-continent in 1947. In Pakistan, his family made good; he joined the Army and was commissioned in 1964. Through dint of his intelligence and hard work he rose through higher ranks in the Army. As he attained higher ranks and responsibilities, he carefully choose his mentors and friends both within the Army as well in political circles. On the way to the top, he earned respect of both his under-command and his seniors for his courage, integrity, determination, hard work and patriotism. In 1998, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Miah Newaz Sharif choose him as the Chief of Staff after the powerful Army Chief General Jehangir Karamat resigned. Some independent commentators suggested that General Musharraf's promotion came precisely because he did not belong to the Punjabi officer class and that Musharraf's ethnic background would leave the general unable to build a powerbase but by that time Musharraf had already built a powerbase. Barely a year later, on 12 October 1999, the aircraft carrying Pervez Musharraf from a visit to Sri Lanka was denied permission to land in Pakistan. When the plane ultimately landed with fuel for 10 minutes flying left in it, Pervez Musharraf had mounted a coup to oust Newaz Sharif. Supporters of Pervez Musharraf claim that Newaz Sharif intended to murder him while his detractors claim that the whole thing was a well planned ploy to capture state power. Pervez Musharraf ruled Pakistan for 9 crucial years during which time the Army went along with him by default.
General Pervez Musharraf assumed or more appropriately usurped political power some 9 years back on the contention that the political, economic and social systems in Pakistan have gone so corrupt that the Country's integrity and sovereignty is threatened. Moreover, the Taliban problems in Afghanistan and the Kashmir issue had serious spill over effects in Pakistan in terms of law and order situation and internal stability or so it was contented. All in all, excuses for Military intervention in politics were not lacking and this tendency towards military dictatorship was actively encouraged by the US who saw in General Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistan military a bulwark against the further spread westwards of radical "Islamic terrorism". In the 9 years that Pervez Musharraf "ruled" Pakistan, he brought the Country to near ruination until the people were near revolting. In an election about a year back, acceded to reluctantly by Musharraf, the people gave their verdict overwhelmingly against what the General stood for and now with the forced resignation of General Pervez Musharraf from the post of President that "ballot-box revolution" is complete. Whether the people of Pakistan can enjoy the fruits of their "democracy" will depend entirely on their determination to continue the process of democratization of their polity inspite of their politicians who are as corrupted a lot as there can be and who have betrayed the confidence of their people more than once.
In a sense Moeen U Ahmed is a Muhajir too; he was a cadet in the Pakistan Air Force College, Sargodah when the War of Liberation of Bangladesh was going on and only returned to Bangladesh a couple of years after the country had gained its independence. In 1974 he joined the Army and was commissioned with the 1st batch of officers of an independent Bangladesh. Like Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, Moeen U Ahmed in Bangladesh is intelligent and hard working and he too selectively cultivated friendships both within the Army and political circles as he proceeded upwards in rank and responsibility. Unlike Musharraf, Moeen U Ahmed is an introvert who is not much liked or respected by either the rank and file or fellow officers but he does know how to command obedience. When in July 2005, Lt General Hasan Mashud Chowdhury was about to retire as the Chief of Staff, Moeen U Ahmed pulled his political connections in BNP through his course mate Major Syed Iskander, the brother of the then Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, to get to the top Army slot bypassing a dozen or so equally competent senior candidates. In December 2006, when political conditions in Bangladesh turned critical, Moeen U Ahmed supported by Major General Masud Uddin Chowdhury ( the brother-in-law of Major Syed Iskander), the GOC 9infantry Division based in Savar, made their bid for power. On the early morning of 11 January 2007, Moeen U Ahmed and Masud Uddin Chowdhury escorted by troops of 9 infantry Division invaded the Bangabhaban and forced the President to sign a Declaration of Emergency. A civilian façade was created by the formation of a council of 10 advisors with a Chief Advisor to head it; all advisors being retired bureaucrats, government servants or military officers. The excuses for this blatant grab at power were similar to those enunciated by Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. "All the evidence of Bangladeshi politics, point to the compelling conclusion that the political parties divided the Nation to a dangerous threshold that had no recourse but to confront a civil war" contented General Moeen U Ahmed in an interview with Global Bangladesh on 01 August 2007.
Much like the Pakistani Army with Pervez Musharraf, the Bangladesh Army went by default with Moeen U Ahmed. In the days after the military coup, there was a sense in the armed forces that they were all in this together. Much of it has evaporated in the past 20 months, and the current activities by Moeen only make clear that he is very much following his own agenda, and any collectivist goals have been discarded a long time ago, if he ever took them seriously at all. A lot of people had a lot of things in mind when they signed up for the military coup, but no one really visualized Moeen as another dictator.. It had taken all of 9 years for Pervez Musharraf to get his Country to the point of ruination but Moeen U Ahmed has managed to ruin Bangladesh within just 20 months; it only remains to be seen how he goes and what lessons we derive from these events.
The lessons than are:
Lesson # 01: Corrupt politicians, divisive politics and weak political institutions readily invite military interventions. Military dictators come to power with messianic goals which they rarely implement, instead breaking down existing institutions without being able to replace them with better ones further aggravating social, economic and political problems thereby initiating a cycle of conflict which in extreme cases leads to complete disintegration of the polity itself. Therefore, principled representative politics and strong political institutions are the "preventive medicines" against military dictators.
Lesson # 2: Weak political institutions lack control mechanisms of all sorts, most tellingly in the control of the Military. War, the preserve of the military demands rigid, hierarchal structures of command, control and communication for the military so that they can respond instantaneously to single commands at different levels emanating from the top and ending at the bottom. Surprise, shock, fear and dislocation - the stuff of successful warfighting can only be employed through such a system. Military dictators employ the same system when taking over the State. As long as Military dictators retain the uniform, the rank and the command goes along with it by default, they are impossible to remove even through massive public agitations and protests. It is only when they discard their uniforms and ranks, that they loose command and are vulnerable to removal and that too not immediately as the case of General HM Ershad in Bangladesh and Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan prove. Therefore, strong political control of the military at strategic and operational levels is the only way to prevent military dictators from taking over the State.
Lesson # 3: Military dictators are elitists. The military decision making process depends on a few selected lot of highly trained specialists called Staffs, who analyze all situations and work out courses of actions for the commander to select from. The Staff-Commander relationship is almost symbiotic with the commander responsible or answerable to no one for his decisions except the next higher commander. The highest military Commander is only accountable and answerable to his political master, whoever that is; in the absence of strong institutional political control, the highest military commander is accountable and answerable to no one save himself. Thus, when military dictators take over the State they aim for absolute control, often suspending or truncating existing core institutions of the State to establish that absolute sway. So, Military dictatorships are inimical, even hostile to institutional developments. The only way out of this is to keep on insisting on broadening the decision-making base, increasing the number of participants in the decision making process, not with the purpose of seeking solutions to problems but aimed at overwhelming the military dictator's decision making process with contradictory and conflicting inputs, finally paralyzing the decision process. This is a gradualist approach, demanding patience and determination on the part of the civil society wanting to get rid of a military dictatorship. This is the process through which the Pakistani civil society and politicians got rid of Pervez Musharraf and this is the process Bangladeshi civil society and politicians have to master, if they intend to get rid of military dictatorships.
Lesson # 4: The first thing military dictators do on taking over the State is to suspend or severely curtail existing laws and legal systems replacing them with such legal devices as emergency power rules, ordinances, special tribunals etc. One consequence of this is that military personnel who are paid just enough by the State to lead a life of "genteel poverty" create and use opportunities to enrich themselves by all sorts of corruption and since the military in State power is not answerable and accountable to anyone except themselves, military personnel often get away with such corruption. The regime itself indulges in corruption by buying up collaborators in politics, business, media and academicia by providing money or other privileges. This coterie of vested interest then supports the military dictator in perpetuating his hold on State power. Such regimes can sometimes be so rapaciously kleptocratic as to reduce the polity and its populace to abject penury or poverty. At the least, corruption is endemic in military dictatorships as is evident from Pakistan under Musharraf and Bangladesh under Ershad and now under a military-backed Emergency. The only way to get out of this is to ensure that democratic movements and governments which often replace military dictatorships do not post-facto legitimize such dictators but declare them unlawful and punish dictators and their collaborators.
This has gotten a mite lengthy and I have to end it here today but stay tuned as next Monday we will continue with our dissection of military dictators and see why and how they rely on foreign powers to shore-up their regimes.
Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan and Moeen U Ahmed in Bangladesh
Mahmud ur Rahman Choudhury
Source: The Bangladesh Today
August 26, 2008
What happens in Pakistan ought not to overly concern us here in Bangladesh but it does because we were once part of Pakistan and have inherited some of the worst aspects of that Country's politics and governance. The four core institutions of our State - the Judiciary and system of Justice, the system of law-enforcement and Police, the system of administration and Bureaucracy and the Military - are all direct descendents of and still display many of the characteristics of the Pakistani system. Military involvement in politics is one of these awful legacies which we in Bangladesh are still tolerating and living with.
I don't know General Pervez Musharraf personally but I have read his very interesting auto-biography, "In the Line of Fire" and I happen to know one of his very close friends from whom I heard quite a bit about the General. As for General Moeen Uddin Ahmed, I have a passing acquaintance with him, having served for 25 years in the Bangladesh Army. Both of these individuals have catapulted themselves into politics in very critical moments in their respective countries' histories and therefore deserve a closer scrutiny of their characters and their deeds so as to draw appropriate lessons for the immediate future. The Pakistani General had to let go of power when he was forced to resign from his presidency on 18 August 2008 while the Bangladeshi General still holds a firm grasp of political power or so he believes.
Starting with the Pakistani General, Pervez Musharraf was a "Muhajir", that is a person who migrated to Pakistan after the partition of the sub-continent in 1947. In Pakistan, his family made good; he joined the Army and was commissioned in 1964. Through dint of his intelligence and hard work he rose through higher ranks in the Army. As he attained higher ranks and responsibilities, he carefully choose his mentors and friends both within the Army as well in political circles. On the way to the top, he earned respect of both his under-command and his seniors for his courage, integrity, determination, hard work and patriotism. In 1998, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Miah Newaz Sharif choose him as the Chief of Staff after the powerful Army Chief General Jehangir Karamat resigned. Some independent commentators suggested that General Musharraf's promotion came precisely because he did not belong to the Punjabi officer class and that Musharraf's ethnic background would leave the general unable to build a powerbase but by that time Musharraf had already built a powerbase. Barely a year later, on 12 October 1999, the aircraft carrying Pervez Musharraf from a visit to Sri Lanka was denied permission to land in Pakistan. When the plane ultimately landed with fuel for 10 minutes flying left in it, Pervez Musharraf had mounted a coup to oust Newaz Sharif. Supporters of Pervez Musharraf claim that Newaz Sharif intended to murder him while his detractors claim that the whole thing was a well planned ploy to capture state power. Pervez Musharraf ruled Pakistan for 9 crucial years during which time the Army went along with him by default.
General Pervez Musharraf assumed or more appropriately usurped political power some 9 years back on the contention that the political, economic and social systems in Pakistan have gone so corrupt that the Country's integrity and sovereignty is threatened. Moreover, the Taliban problems in Afghanistan and the Kashmir issue had serious spill over effects in Pakistan in terms of law and order situation and internal stability or so it was contented. All in all, excuses for Military intervention in politics were not lacking and this tendency towards military dictatorship was actively encouraged by the US who saw in General Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistan military a bulwark against the further spread westwards of radical "Islamic terrorism". In the 9 years that Pervez Musharraf "ruled" Pakistan, he brought the Country to near ruination until the people were near revolting. In an election about a year back, acceded to reluctantly by Musharraf, the people gave their verdict overwhelmingly against what the General stood for and now with the forced resignation of General Pervez Musharraf from the post of President that "ballot-box revolution" is complete. Whether the people of Pakistan can enjoy the fruits of their "democracy" will depend entirely on their determination to continue the process of democratization of their polity inspite of their politicians who are as corrupted a lot as there can be and who have betrayed the confidence of their people more than once.
In a sense Moeen U Ahmed is a Muhajir too; he was a cadet in the Pakistan Air Force College, Sargodah when the War of Liberation of Bangladesh was going on and only returned to Bangladesh a couple of years after the country had gained its independence. In 1974 he joined the Army and was commissioned with the 1st batch of officers of an independent Bangladesh. Like Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, Moeen U Ahmed in Bangladesh is intelligent and hard working and he too selectively cultivated friendships both within the Army and political circles as he proceeded upwards in rank and responsibility. Unlike Musharraf, Moeen U Ahmed is an introvert who is not much liked or respected by either the rank and file or fellow officers but he does know how to command obedience. When in July 2005, Lt General Hasan Mashud Chowdhury was about to retire as the Chief of Staff, Moeen U Ahmed pulled his political connections in BNP through his course mate Major Syed Iskander, the brother of the then Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, to get to the top Army slot bypassing a dozen or so equally competent senior candidates. In December 2006, when political conditions in Bangladesh turned critical, Moeen U Ahmed supported by Major General Masud Uddin Chowdhury ( the brother-in-law of Major Syed Iskander), the GOC 9infantry Division based in Savar, made their bid for power. On the early morning of 11 January 2007, Moeen U Ahmed and Masud Uddin Chowdhury escorted by troops of 9 infantry Division invaded the Bangabhaban and forced the President to sign a Declaration of Emergency. A civilian façade was created by the formation of a council of 10 advisors with a Chief Advisor to head it; all advisors being retired bureaucrats, government servants or military officers. The excuses for this blatant grab at power were similar to those enunciated by Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. "All the evidence of Bangladeshi politics, point to the compelling conclusion that the political parties divided the Nation to a dangerous threshold that had no recourse but to confront a civil war" contented General Moeen U Ahmed in an interview with Global Bangladesh on 01 August 2007.
Much like the Pakistani Army with Pervez Musharraf, the Bangladesh Army went by default with Moeen U Ahmed. In the days after the military coup, there was a sense in the armed forces that they were all in this together. Much of it has evaporated in the past 20 months, and the current activities by Moeen only make clear that he is very much following his own agenda, and any collectivist goals have been discarded a long time ago, if he ever took them seriously at all. A lot of people had a lot of things in mind when they signed up for the military coup, but no one really visualized Moeen as another dictator.. It had taken all of 9 years for Pervez Musharraf to get his Country to the point of ruination but Moeen U Ahmed has managed to ruin Bangladesh within just 20 months; it only remains to be seen how he goes and what lessons we derive from these events.
The lessons than are:
Lesson # 01: Corrupt politicians, divisive politics and weak political institutions readily invite military interventions. Military dictators come to power with messianic goals which they rarely implement, instead breaking down existing institutions without being able to replace them with better ones further aggravating social, economic and political problems thereby initiating a cycle of conflict which in extreme cases leads to complete disintegration of the polity itself. Therefore, principled representative politics and strong political institutions are the "preventive medicines" against military dictators.
Lesson # 2: Weak political institutions lack control mechanisms of all sorts, most tellingly in the control of the Military. War, the preserve of the military demands rigid, hierarchal structures of command, control and communication for the military so that they can respond instantaneously to single commands at different levels emanating from the top and ending at the bottom. Surprise, shock, fear and dislocation - the stuff of successful warfighting can only be employed through such a system. Military dictators employ the same system when taking over the State. As long as Military dictators retain the uniform, the rank and the command goes along with it by default, they are impossible to remove even through massive public agitations and protests. It is only when they discard their uniforms and ranks, that they loose command and are vulnerable to removal and that too not immediately as the case of General HM Ershad in Bangladesh and Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan prove. Therefore, strong political control of the military at strategic and operational levels is the only way to prevent military dictators from taking over the State.
Lesson # 3: Military dictators are elitists. The military decision making process depends on a few selected lot of highly trained specialists called Staffs, who analyze all situations and work out courses of actions for the commander to select from. The Staff-Commander relationship is almost symbiotic with the commander responsible or answerable to no one for his decisions except the next higher commander. The highest military Commander is only accountable and answerable to his political master, whoever that is; in the absence of strong institutional political control, the highest military commander is accountable and answerable to no one save himself. Thus, when military dictators take over the State they aim for absolute control, often suspending or truncating existing core institutions of the State to establish that absolute sway. So, Military dictatorships are inimical, even hostile to institutional developments. The only way out of this is to keep on insisting on broadening the decision-making base, increasing the number of participants in the decision making process, not with the purpose of seeking solutions to problems but aimed at overwhelming the military dictator's decision making process with contradictory and conflicting inputs, finally paralyzing the decision process. This is a gradualist approach, demanding patience and determination on the part of the civil society wanting to get rid of a military dictatorship. This is the process through which the Pakistani civil society and politicians got rid of Pervez Musharraf and this is the process Bangladeshi civil society and politicians have to master, if they intend to get rid of military dictatorships.
Lesson # 4: The first thing military dictators do on taking over the State is to suspend or severely curtail existing laws and legal systems replacing them with such legal devices as emergency power rules, ordinances, special tribunals etc. One consequence of this is that military personnel who are paid just enough by the State to lead a life of "genteel poverty" create and use opportunities to enrich themselves by all sorts of corruption and since the military in State power is not answerable and accountable to anyone except themselves, military personnel often get away with such corruption. The regime itself indulges in corruption by buying up collaborators in politics, business, media and academicia by providing money or other privileges. This coterie of vested interest then supports the military dictator in perpetuating his hold on State power. Such regimes can sometimes be so rapaciously kleptocratic as to reduce the polity and its populace to abject penury or poverty. At the least, corruption is endemic in military dictatorships as is evident from Pakistan under Musharraf and Bangladesh under Ershad and now under a military-backed Emergency. The only way to get out of this is to ensure that democratic movements and governments which often replace military dictatorships do not post-facto legitimize such dictators but declare them unlawful and punish dictators and their collaborators.
This has gotten a mite lengthy and I have to end it here today but stay tuned as next Monday we will continue with our dissection of military dictators and see why and how they rely on foreign powers to shore-up their regimes.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Musharraf's exit: Lessons for them and us
Musharraf's exit: Lessons for them and us
Mahfuz Anam
Source: Daily Star
August 20, 2008
The most obvious and truly heartening meaning of Pervez Musharraf's ouster is that democracy is the best form of government and it is the only one that people prefer. There have often been talks of this or that country, or people not being ready for democracy. Such views are archaic, self-serving and devoid of all lessons of history. People everywhere prefer freedom and the political system that has been found, over and over again, to fulfill that irrepressible aspiration of the people is democracy. However, flawed democracy was and remains the best option for people everywhere. A lesson that we in Bangladesh have learnt the hard way and one that we are determined to preserve under all circumstances.
The other meaning, and of far reaching consequence for people everywhere is that military dictatorship cannot deliver and is not a sustainable option for countries anywhere in the world. Pakistan has proven once again, if proof was at all necessary, that military rulers however smart, efficient, modern, organised and well meaning (and they sometimes are) ultimately fail, and miserably so, to live up to the expectation of the people. Sometimes, if not rarely, they begin well. But ultimately it all ends in disaster as it also happened in Musharraf's case. In addition to curtailing freedom what military dictatorships end up doing is distorting institutions --administrative, financial and supervisory -- including their own. The most efficient of military ends up being corrupt and as such destroy themselves from within. And it all happens because they enjoy power and authority without being held accountable, which corrodes the discipline that is the lifeblood of a genuine military.
Pakistan should serve as the greatest example of how a country's stride into maturity was repeatedly thwarted by self-serving military charlatans. Each time a military dictator came, he promised to make Pakistan stronger and left it weaker and debilitated in every sense of the term. General Ayub Khan (1958-69) created the over-centralised, elitist and insensitive (of people's needs) bureaucracy that widened the rich-poor gap. Fatally it created economic disparity between the two wings of the country and laid the economic foundation of its bifurcation. Gen Yahya (1969-1971) presided over the genocide of the Bangalees and created the ground for Pakistan's immediate destruction. Gen Ziaul Huq (1977-1988) ravaged whatever was left of the original spirit of Pakistan by unleashing the obscurantist forces that might yet ring the death knell of whatever is left. Finally, Gen Musharraf destroyed Pakistan's democratic recovery by staging a coup under the most indefensible of all circumstances --that of saving his own job. In the name of "war on terror" he made Pakistan a backyard for Taliban and safe haven for al-Qaeda. Never has Pakistan been under such dark cloud of religious extremism as it is now. His selfishness and arrogance crossed all limits when he all but destroyed Pakistan's highest judiciary just to cling to power.
If there is a single factor that can be blamed for the gradual destruction of Pakistan it is the repeated military takeover of the state power.
Pakistan's sad story began with another general, Iskandar Mirza, who, back in mid-fifties manipulated himself into the presidency, and then colluded with Gen Ayub Khan to stage the coup, simply to prevent holding of the first-ever general election in Pakistan, scheduled for February 1958. If that election was held, Pakistan's history might well have been far happier.
While the generals in Pakistan were playing havoc with the country, what were the politicians doing? That is another lesson from Musharraf's departure that we need to think of today. Who opened the door for Maj Gen Iskandar Mirza to come to power? Who prevented the adoption of a constitution in Pakistan till 1956 (Pakistan was born in 1947)? Who planned with Gen Ayub to abrogate it in 1958, lest Awami League, led by Shaheed Suhrawardy, comes to power through the ballot? It can be said that two thoughts guided the politicians of Pakistan from 1947 to Ayub's coup. One was to prevent holding of the elections as long as possible and two, to deprive leaders of the eastern wing to have any share of power. (Suhrawardy's cabinet in 1957 was a honourable exception, which was brought down within 13 months of its taking office).
After December 1971, with the civilian rule returning, elections held, and with the lesson of Bangladesh liberation fresh in the mind, people hoped that Pakistan would embark on its journey towards democracy. But Zulfiqur Ali Bhutto turned into a tyrant. Under him the opposition was so oppressed that it ultimately took to streets, making the fatal opening for the much-humiliated Gen Ziaul Huq (The supremely arrogant Bhutto used to call him "My monkey general”) to stage his coup.
Both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were elected twice and twice they were forced out of power through civilian-military connivance but not without a widespread reputation of corruption. Benazir's husband, now Pakistan's kingmaker, Asif Ali Zardari, was widely known as "Mr. Ten Percent" under Benazir's premiership. It was Nawaz Sharif's father known as "Abba Ji" who ruled the roost during Nawaz's tenure, not to mention Nawaz's brother Shahbaz Sharif (Chief Minister of Punjab) and his wide network of family members and cronies who joined in the loot. It was corruption, nepotism and cronyism that defeated both the twice-elected Pakistani leaders.
While we rejoice at Pakistan's renewed opportunity to take to the democratic path, the facts cannot be lost on neither the people of Pakistan nor their well-wishers in the Saarc countries that Mr. Zardari's reputation leave a lot of us nervous as to his commitment to democracy. How can we forget that the Presidency of Pakistan's most popular party, the Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP), was bequeath to a minor son, as if it was personal property like a land or a house to be inherited through a will. And in line with Nawabs and Zamindars of the past, a Regent has also been willed, to look after the 'throne' till the minor son is ready to take over fully. So the father, reviled as one of the most corrupt men in the country, is to run the party till then. The leaders and the workers who worked for years risking their lives against the military rule of Musharraf had no say as to who the party's leader will be. The message is clear, lest anybody has any doubt, that Pakistan Peoples' Party is the personal property of the Bhutto family to be given away as an inheritance. Now that really sounds like the party to bring democracy to Pakistan.
If we are to blame the military dictators for the destruction of democracy in Pakistan, the politicians need to share a significant part of the blame. And here lies some crucial lessons for us in Bangladesh. If the colonels who assassinated Bangabandhu, and Gen Ziaur Rahman and Gen Ershad are guilty of bringing the military into politics in Bangladesh, our politicians are also guilty of failing to consolidate, institutionalise and deepen the roots of democracy in the country. Sheikh Mujib did not have to introduce BKSAL. Sheikh Hasina did not have to damage the economy through hartals and weaken the parliament through years of boycott. Khaleda Zia did not have to set up her son to 'inherit' the throne and the other one to gobble up business of others. She needn't have set up the most corrupt regime ever by an elected government. As the leader of two-thirds majority in the parliament she did not need the likes of Harris, Falu, Babar, and hordes of others like them. She did not have to make her sister a minister and allow her two brothers to interfere in the army and in the national airlines, the Biman.
Not withstanding many differences (our tradition of democratic movement is stronger, people are far more aware of their rights, we have better social indicators, and our military today is far different from that of Pakistan and they are far more respectful of democracy and need for elected government than Pakistan army ever was), just as Pakistan looks forward to democracy, so do we. Just as in Pakistan where the two old parties, the PPP and the Muslim League, are set to resume their roles in politics, in Bangladesh, our two major parties, the Awami League and the BNP, are set to regain their dominance in our politics following the elections later this year. The question here is, just as in Pakistan, will our politicians rise to the occasion and play their patriotic and nation-building role so that the likelihood of military dictatorship is forever banished from our realm of possibility?
Mahfuz Anam
Source: Daily Star
August 20, 2008
The most obvious and truly heartening meaning of Pervez Musharraf's ouster is that democracy is the best form of government and it is the only one that people prefer. There have often been talks of this or that country, or people not being ready for democracy. Such views are archaic, self-serving and devoid of all lessons of history. People everywhere prefer freedom and the political system that has been found, over and over again, to fulfill that irrepressible aspiration of the people is democracy. However, flawed democracy was and remains the best option for people everywhere. A lesson that we in Bangladesh have learnt the hard way and one that we are determined to preserve under all circumstances.
The other meaning, and of far reaching consequence for people everywhere is that military dictatorship cannot deliver and is not a sustainable option for countries anywhere in the world. Pakistan has proven once again, if proof was at all necessary, that military rulers however smart, efficient, modern, organised and well meaning (and they sometimes are) ultimately fail, and miserably so, to live up to the expectation of the people. Sometimes, if not rarely, they begin well. But ultimately it all ends in disaster as it also happened in Musharraf's case. In addition to curtailing freedom what military dictatorships end up doing is distorting institutions --administrative, financial and supervisory -- including their own. The most efficient of military ends up being corrupt and as such destroy themselves from within. And it all happens because they enjoy power and authority without being held accountable, which corrodes the discipline that is the lifeblood of a genuine military.
Pakistan should serve as the greatest example of how a country's stride into maturity was repeatedly thwarted by self-serving military charlatans. Each time a military dictator came, he promised to make Pakistan stronger and left it weaker and debilitated in every sense of the term. General Ayub Khan (1958-69) created the over-centralised, elitist and insensitive (of people's needs) bureaucracy that widened the rich-poor gap. Fatally it created economic disparity between the two wings of the country and laid the economic foundation of its bifurcation. Gen Yahya (1969-1971) presided over the genocide of the Bangalees and created the ground for Pakistan's immediate destruction. Gen Ziaul Huq (1977-1988) ravaged whatever was left of the original spirit of Pakistan by unleashing the obscurantist forces that might yet ring the death knell of whatever is left. Finally, Gen Musharraf destroyed Pakistan's democratic recovery by staging a coup under the most indefensible of all circumstances --that of saving his own job. In the name of "war on terror" he made Pakistan a backyard for Taliban and safe haven for al-Qaeda. Never has Pakistan been under such dark cloud of religious extremism as it is now. His selfishness and arrogance crossed all limits when he all but destroyed Pakistan's highest judiciary just to cling to power.
If there is a single factor that can be blamed for the gradual destruction of Pakistan it is the repeated military takeover of the state power.
Pakistan's sad story began with another general, Iskandar Mirza, who, back in mid-fifties manipulated himself into the presidency, and then colluded with Gen Ayub Khan to stage the coup, simply to prevent holding of the first-ever general election in Pakistan, scheduled for February 1958. If that election was held, Pakistan's history might well have been far happier.
While the generals in Pakistan were playing havoc with the country, what were the politicians doing? That is another lesson from Musharraf's departure that we need to think of today. Who opened the door for Maj Gen Iskandar Mirza to come to power? Who prevented the adoption of a constitution in Pakistan till 1956 (Pakistan was born in 1947)? Who planned with Gen Ayub to abrogate it in 1958, lest Awami League, led by Shaheed Suhrawardy, comes to power through the ballot? It can be said that two thoughts guided the politicians of Pakistan from 1947 to Ayub's coup. One was to prevent holding of the elections as long as possible and two, to deprive leaders of the eastern wing to have any share of power. (Suhrawardy's cabinet in 1957 was a honourable exception, which was brought down within 13 months of its taking office).
After December 1971, with the civilian rule returning, elections held, and with the lesson of Bangladesh liberation fresh in the mind, people hoped that Pakistan would embark on its journey towards democracy. But Zulfiqur Ali Bhutto turned into a tyrant. Under him the opposition was so oppressed that it ultimately took to streets, making the fatal opening for the much-humiliated Gen Ziaul Huq (The supremely arrogant Bhutto used to call him "My monkey general”) to stage his coup.
Both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were elected twice and twice they were forced out of power through civilian-military connivance but not without a widespread reputation of corruption. Benazir's husband, now Pakistan's kingmaker, Asif Ali Zardari, was widely known as "Mr. Ten Percent" under Benazir's premiership. It was Nawaz Sharif's father known as "Abba Ji" who ruled the roost during Nawaz's tenure, not to mention Nawaz's brother Shahbaz Sharif (Chief Minister of Punjab) and his wide network of family members and cronies who joined in the loot. It was corruption, nepotism and cronyism that defeated both the twice-elected Pakistani leaders.
While we rejoice at Pakistan's renewed opportunity to take to the democratic path, the facts cannot be lost on neither the people of Pakistan nor their well-wishers in the Saarc countries that Mr. Zardari's reputation leave a lot of us nervous as to his commitment to democracy. How can we forget that the Presidency of Pakistan's most popular party, the Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP), was bequeath to a minor son, as if it was personal property like a land or a house to be inherited through a will. And in line with Nawabs and Zamindars of the past, a Regent has also been willed, to look after the 'throne' till the minor son is ready to take over fully. So the father, reviled as one of the most corrupt men in the country, is to run the party till then. The leaders and the workers who worked for years risking their lives against the military rule of Musharraf had no say as to who the party's leader will be. The message is clear, lest anybody has any doubt, that Pakistan Peoples' Party is the personal property of the Bhutto family to be given away as an inheritance. Now that really sounds like the party to bring democracy to Pakistan.
If we are to blame the military dictators for the destruction of democracy in Pakistan, the politicians need to share a significant part of the blame. And here lies some crucial lessons for us in Bangladesh. If the colonels who assassinated Bangabandhu, and Gen Ziaur Rahman and Gen Ershad are guilty of bringing the military into politics in Bangladesh, our politicians are also guilty of failing to consolidate, institutionalise and deepen the roots of democracy in the country. Sheikh Mujib did not have to introduce BKSAL. Sheikh Hasina did not have to damage the economy through hartals and weaken the parliament through years of boycott. Khaleda Zia did not have to set up her son to 'inherit' the throne and the other one to gobble up business of others. She needn't have set up the most corrupt regime ever by an elected government. As the leader of two-thirds majority in the parliament she did not need the likes of Harris, Falu, Babar, and hordes of others like them. She did not have to make her sister a minister and allow her two brothers to interfere in the army and in the national airlines, the Biman.
Not withstanding many differences (our tradition of democratic movement is stronger, people are far more aware of their rights, we have better social indicators, and our military today is far different from that of Pakistan and they are far more respectful of democracy and need for elected government than Pakistan army ever was), just as Pakistan looks forward to democracy, so do we. Just as in Pakistan where the two old parties, the PPP and the Muslim League, are set to resume their roles in politics, in Bangladesh, our two major parties, the Awami League and the BNP, are set to regain their dominance in our politics following the elections later this year. The question here is, just as in Pakistan, will our politicians rise to the occasion and play their patriotic and nation-building role so that the likelihood of military dictatorship is forever banished from our realm of possibility?
Musharraf’s gamble
Musharraf’s gamble
William B Milam
Source: Daily Times
August 20, 2008
Who is gambling on this saga ending as Casablanca did, with Rick feeling that he has done the right thing for a greater good, joining Renault who has sacrificed his security for the same greater good, walking into the sunset together to fight for a better world
Captain Renault’s celebrated exclamation, “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here,” has been used a lot recently, especially in articles about the implosion of financial markets in the US and Western Europe. Writers have been “shocked” they say to find that the great, and trusted, investment wizards have been gambling with the public’s money. The gamble really was that the housing bubble, the rapid escalation of house prices in the US and Europe would continue, and the shaky financial instruments on which the bubble was based, would persist in escaping close inspection, at least until the next bonuses were paid.
They didn’t, the bubble has burst, and so maybe have the bonuses.
Captain Renault, Chief of the French Police, wasn’t really shocked, however, about the gambling in “Rick’s Café Americain”, he just needed an excuse to close the café. Almost as soon as he blows his whistle and shouts that the café is closed, the croupier comes from the back room to give him his nightly winnings. Like most of us who have implicitly had a role in today’s financial market crunch by continuing to pour our investment money into a housing market we had to know was wildly overpriced, so the Captain was complicit in the gambling that he found, publicly, so shocking.
Movie fans have instantly recognised Renault’s famous line from the movie “Casablanca”, released in November 1942, about the same time that the US Army was invading Morocco and capturing Casablanca, putting German General Rommel in a pincer between them and the British forces that by then had pushed the German Afrika Korps back into Libya. The movie did moderately good business in the year following as the battles in North Africa raged — the first blooding of American troops in the European theatre in WWII.
Yet though unmarked as a classic 65 years ago, the movie has assumed that status over the intervening years as it has become an icon of all the nostalgia about the good war — delivering the message to American audiences that there are values worth the sacrifices that war requires. Somehow the film’s attraction has been magnified to younger generations, which have taken it to their hearts as its contemporaries never did. None of its stars or makers would have predicted in 1942 that, 65 years later, it would consistently be rated by fans and many critics near the top of the 100 best movies ever made.
One interesting fact about the movie is that it was, more or less, made on the run. Taken from an unproduced play, it had at least four screen writers that worked on it in addition to the two playwrights. To say the least, this was a team effort. The writers, not always working together, wrote new dialogue every night for the next day’s filming. Yet, haphazardly written or not, I know of no other movie dialogue that is recorded almost in its entirety on the internet, and which movie crowds at revivals shout out many of the lines as they are spoken. Most of us real movie fans can push mute button on the remote and speak most of the dialogue from memory.
Despite its ad hoc production, the film became a classic. This may have been why the news from Pakistan reminded me of it. Or it may have been because once the film came into my mind, I was reminded of Captain Renault’s phoney surprise that gambling was going on in Rick’s back room, and wondered if anybody was really surprised at the turn of events in Islamabad. There has been a lot of gambling going on in the political back rooms of Islamabad since February 18.
The president was, perhaps, gambling that he could count on the army as his leverage in the political tug-of-war that was waged over how to get rid of him. I have pointed out before that the army has other concerns than just personal loyalty to “one of its own”. Similar history in other countries never seems to register in Pakistan, but the lesson of what happened to President/ex-General Ershad in Bangladesh should have been instructive.
When the Bangladesh army perceived that its corporate interests were threatened and its image so badly tarnished by the excesses and mistakes of one of its own, it walked away and left him to his fate (jail). By the time the situation had come to that point, Ershad had no leverage left to insist on immunity.
In the last 18 months, the situation in Pakistan has paralleled in many ways Ershad’s last 18 months in power. Though more unpopular by far than President Musharraf in his early years in power, Ershad became increasingly unpopular in the final years, as Musharraf increasingly has since 9/11. The army’s popularity traced Ershad’s, to the point that troops and officers refused to wear their uniforms when leaving the cantonments because they were suffering public insults and even being spat on. When the leaders of the two major parties of Bangladesh, after 8 years of enmity that enabled Ershad to keep them divided, finally agreed on a one-point programme — get rid of Ershad — his only defence to the pressure the parties jointly mounted was an emergency which the army refused to support.
Musharraf’s final defence against the lawyers and the judges he sacked was the November 3 emergency (in essence a coup against his own government) which only got him and the army in more hot water. The question is, did President Musharraf still have enough leverage (i.e. army support) left to protect him from political reprisals in retirement or, like Ershad, did he gamble too long on that?
The news that he has announced retirement is just coming in as this is written, and it does not make clear if he is leaving office with any kind of immunity or other legal protection from his sworn political enemies. Whether he deserves to be left alone in retirement, or to be brought up on charges similar to those in the charge-sheet we have read about the past few days in the press, is a question better left to a time when the rhetoric and the passions have cooled down. He made many mistakes; that is certain.
One of them is the long, drawn-out drama — really part of each of our mornings since February 18 — that is just coming to denouement. Though retirement itself, rather that restoring the judges, only became the central issue in the past two weeks, it has been the bottom line issue since he was rejected in that election.
The president should have come to this point himself several months ago. Had he done so, I suspect there would be no question of his leverage. The army leaders, many of whom were his willing colleagues until late last year when he finally resigned as COAS, would have not wanted to leave him (and by implication, them) without protection from those political actors who might seek revenge for grievances they hold against either the direct military government of 1999 to 2002 or the military/civilian hybrid one after October 2002.
It seems to me his gamble got riskier as the impasse between the parties on restoring the judges went on — almost causing the government alliance to crumble.
For the army leaders in either case, the question is what happens to the political alliance that has unseated President Musharraf after he is gone to his farm with immunity and the protection he will need or somewhere without immunity. Who is gambling on this saga ending as Casablanca did, with Rick feeling that he has done the right thing for a greater good, joining Renault who has sacrificed his security for the same greater good, walking into the sunset together to fight for a better world.
What are the odds on the PMLN saying to the PPP, as Rick says to Renault as they walk out of view, “...this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship?” Is it likely that two parties which seem to agree on nothing else, which couldn’t even find a compromise formula to restore some, if not all, of the judges and begin to restore the judiciary’s independence set out in the constitution of 1973 (eroded by both parties when they were in power since then) will come to anything like the same conclusion?
The President’s departure was necessary for political progress, but I doubt it will be sufficient for Pakistan to overcome its existential crisis.
______________
William B Milam is a senior policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Centre in Washington and a former US Ambassador to Pakistan and Bangladesh
William B Milam
Source: Daily Times
August 20, 2008
Who is gambling on this saga ending as Casablanca did, with Rick feeling that he has done the right thing for a greater good, joining Renault who has sacrificed his security for the same greater good, walking into the sunset together to fight for a better world
Captain Renault’s celebrated exclamation, “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here,” has been used a lot recently, especially in articles about the implosion of financial markets in the US and Western Europe. Writers have been “shocked” they say to find that the great, and trusted, investment wizards have been gambling with the public’s money. The gamble really was that the housing bubble, the rapid escalation of house prices in the US and Europe would continue, and the shaky financial instruments on which the bubble was based, would persist in escaping close inspection, at least until the next bonuses were paid.
They didn’t, the bubble has burst, and so maybe have the bonuses.
Captain Renault, Chief of the French Police, wasn’t really shocked, however, about the gambling in “Rick’s Café Americain”, he just needed an excuse to close the café. Almost as soon as he blows his whistle and shouts that the café is closed, the croupier comes from the back room to give him his nightly winnings. Like most of us who have implicitly had a role in today’s financial market crunch by continuing to pour our investment money into a housing market we had to know was wildly overpriced, so the Captain was complicit in the gambling that he found, publicly, so shocking.
Movie fans have instantly recognised Renault’s famous line from the movie “Casablanca”, released in November 1942, about the same time that the US Army was invading Morocco and capturing Casablanca, putting German General Rommel in a pincer between them and the British forces that by then had pushed the German Afrika Korps back into Libya. The movie did moderately good business in the year following as the battles in North Africa raged — the first blooding of American troops in the European theatre in WWII.
Yet though unmarked as a classic 65 years ago, the movie has assumed that status over the intervening years as it has become an icon of all the nostalgia about the good war — delivering the message to American audiences that there are values worth the sacrifices that war requires. Somehow the film’s attraction has been magnified to younger generations, which have taken it to their hearts as its contemporaries never did. None of its stars or makers would have predicted in 1942 that, 65 years later, it would consistently be rated by fans and many critics near the top of the 100 best movies ever made.
One interesting fact about the movie is that it was, more or less, made on the run. Taken from an unproduced play, it had at least four screen writers that worked on it in addition to the two playwrights. To say the least, this was a team effort. The writers, not always working together, wrote new dialogue every night for the next day’s filming. Yet, haphazardly written or not, I know of no other movie dialogue that is recorded almost in its entirety on the internet, and which movie crowds at revivals shout out many of the lines as they are spoken. Most of us real movie fans can push mute button on the remote and speak most of the dialogue from memory.
Despite its ad hoc production, the film became a classic. This may have been why the news from Pakistan reminded me of it. Or it may have been because once the film came into my mind, I was reminded of Captain Renault’s phoney surprise that gambling was going on in Rick’s back room, and wondered if anybody was really surprised at the turn of events in Islamabad. There has been a lot of gambling going on in the political back rooms of Islamabad since February 18.
The president was, perhaps, gambling that he could count on the army as his leverage in the political tug-of-war that was waged over how to get rid of him. I have pointed out before that the army has other concerns than just personal loyalty to “one of its own”. Similar history in other countries never seems to register in Pakistan, but the lesson of what happened to President/ex-General Ershad in Bangladesh should have been instructive.
When the Bangladesh army perceived that its corporate interests were threatened and its image so badly tarnished by the excesses and mistakes of one of its own, it walked away and left him to his fate (jail). By the time the situation had come to that point, Ershad had no leverage left to insist on immunity.
In the last 18 months, the situation in Pakistan has paralleled in many ways Ershad’s last 18 months in power. Though more unpopular by far than President Musharraf in his early years in power, Ershad became increasingly unpopular in the final years, as Musharraf increasingly has since 9/11. The army’s popularity traced Ershad’s, to the point that troops and officers refused to wear their uniforms when leaving the cantonments because they were suffering public insults and even being spat on. When the leaders of the two major parties of Bangladesh, after 8 years of enmity that enabled Ershad to keep them divided, finally agreed on a one-point programme — get rid of Ershad — his only defence to the pressure the parties jointly mounted was an emergency which the army refused to support.
Musharraf’s final defence against the lawyers and the judges he sacked was the November 3 emergency (in essence a coup against his own government) which only got him and the army in more hot water. The question is, did President Musharraf still have enough leverage (i.e. army support) left to protect him from political reprisals in retirement or, like Ershad, did he gamble too long on that?
The news that he has announced retirement is just coming in as this is written, and it does not make clear if he is leaving office with any kind of immunity or other legal protection from his sworn political enemies. Whether he deserves to be left alone in retirement, or to be brought up on charges similar to those in the charge-sheet we have read about the past few days in the press, is a question better left to a time when the rhetoric and the passions have cooled down. He made many mistakes; that is certain.
One of them is the long, drawn-out drama — really part of each of our mornings since February 18 — that is just coming to denouement. Though retirement itself, rather that restoring the judges, only became the central issue in the past two weeks, it has been the bottom line issue since he was rejected in that election.
The president should have come to this point himself several months ago. Had he done so, I suspect there would be no question of his leverage. The army leaders, many of whom were his willing colleagues until late last year when he finally resigned as COAS, would have not wanted to leave him (and by implication, them) without protection from those political actors who might seek revenge for grievances they hold against either the direct military government of 1999 to 2002 or the military/civilian hybrid one after October 2002.
It seems to me his gamble got riskier as the impasse between the parties on restoring the judges went on — almost causing the government alliance to crumble.
For the army leaders in either case, the question is what happens to the political alliance that has unseated President Musharraf after he is gone to his farm with immunity and the protection he will need or somewhere without immunity. Who is gambling on this saga ending as Casablanca did, with Rick feeling that he has done the right thing for a greater good, joining Renault who has sacrificed his security for the same greater good, walking into the sunset together to fight for a better world.
What are the odds on the PMLN saying to the PPP, as Rick says to Renault as they walk out of view, “...this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship?” Is it likely that two parties which seem to agree on nothing else, which couldn’t even find a compromise formula to restore some, if not all, of the judges and begin to restore the judiciary’s independence set out in the constitution of 1973 (eroded by both parties when they were in power since then) will come to anything like the same conclusion?
The President’s departure was necessary for political progress, but I doubt it will be sufficient for Pakistan to overcome its existential crisis.
______________
William B Milam is a senior policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Centre in Washington and a former US Ambassador to Pakistan and Bangladesh
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
4 military dictators among 14 heads of state so far
4 military dictators among 14 heads of state so far
By Hasan Ali
Source: Daily Times
August 19, 2008
LAHORE: In its 61 years’ history, Pakistan has witnessed 14 heads of state including four governors general and ten presidents, out of whom four were military dictators and ten civilians.
Pakistan has remained under military rule for 33 years, and civilian rule for 28 years.
The first governor general of Pakistan was Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Following his death on September 11, 1948, Khawaja Nazimuddin became the second governor general of the country on September 14, 1948. After the assassination of then prime minister Liaqat Ali Khan he resigned from the post of president in October 1951 and became the new prime minister of Pakistan.
On October 19, 1951, the third governor general of Pakistan Malik Ghulam Muhammad took oath as head of state. He forced Nazimuddin to resign from office and when the latter refused to do so he dismissed him from his post in 1953. Ghulam Muhammad appointed Muhammad Ali Bogra as the new PM, but in 1954 he dismissed Bogra as well, citing his unsatisfactory performance.
Ghulam Muhammad took leave of absence on August 7, 1955. The acting governor general Iskander Mirza dismissed him. Mirza took oath as the fourth governor general of Pakistan on October 7, 1955. In 1956, Pakistan promulgated its first constitution. The president replaced the governor general as head of state. Mirza was elected as president.
In 1958, army chief General Ayub Khan declared the first martial law in the country on October 7, 1958. Ayub took oath as president on October 27, 1958. On June 8, 1962, martial law was lifted and a new constitution was introduced.
On March 25, 1969, he resigned and handed over power to the commander-in-chief of Pakistan Army, General Yahya Khan, who became president of Pakistan on the same day. In 1970 he held general elections, but just after the elections India attacked Pakistan. Bangladesh was established as an independent republic. Most of the blame was heaped on Yahya and on December 20, 1971 he hastily surrendered his powers to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Bhutto took oath as president of Pakistan on December 20, 1971 and remained the head of the state till August 14, 1973. The military took control of government under General Muhammad Ziaul Haq in 1978.
Zia took the president’s oath on September 16, 1978. He later had Bhutto executed. Zia initially ruled for a year as martial law administrator, and later assumed the post of president of Pakistan. He died in an aircraft crash near Bahawalpur on August 17, 1988.
Chairman of Senate Ghulam Ishaq Khan became the acting president and was formally elected to the position in December 1988. He remained president until 1993. In 1993, with the support of the Pakistan People’s Party, Farooq Leghari won the presidential election against Wasim Sajjad. In November 1996, utilising his powers under Article 58(2b) of the constitution of Pakistan, Leghari dismissed the PPP government of Benazir Bhutto. He remained president till December 2, 1997.
Justice (r) Muhammad Rafiq Tarar took oath as the 11th president of Pakistan on January 1, 1998. Tarar was mostly a figurehead. He was not removed from office when General Pervez Musharraf seized control of government in 1999.
In 1999, General Pervez Musharraf deposed the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif and served the country as chief executive till 2001. He formally became the president on June 20, 2001 as a result of a referendum. On November 3, 2007, Musharraf declared emergency in the country. However, he retired from the military on November 28, 2007. Musharraf remained the president of Pakistan for nine months after taking off his uniform. He resigned on August 18, 2008 after the ruling coalition decided to impeach him.
By Hasan Ali
Source: Daily Times
August 19, 2008
LAHORE: In its 61 years’ history, Pakistan has witnessed 14 heads of state including four governors general and ten presidents, out of whom four were military dictators and ten civilians.
Pakistan has remained under military rule for 33 years, and civilian rule for 28 years.
The first governor general of Pakistan was Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Following his death on September 11, 1948, Khawaja Nazimuddin became the second governor general of the country on September 14, 1948. After the assassination of then prime minister Liaqat Ali Khan he resigned from the post of president in October 1951 and became the new prime minister of Pakistan.
On October 19, 1951, the third governor general of Pakistan Malik Ghulam Muhammad took oath as head of state. He forced Nazimuddin to resign from office and when the latter refused to do so he dismissed him from his post in 1953. Ghulam Muhammad appointed Muhammad Ali Bogra as the new PM, but in 1954 he dismissed Bogra as well, citing his unsatisfactory performance.
Ghulam Muhammad took leave of absence on August 7, 1955. The acting governor general Iskander Mirza dismissed him. Mirza took oath as the fourth governor general of Pakistan on October 7, 1955. In 1956, Pakistan promulgated its first constitution. The president replaced the governor general as head of state. Mirza was elected as president.
In 1958, army chief General Ayub Khan declared the first martial law in the country on October 7, 1958. Ayub took oath as president on October 27, 1958. On June 8, 1962, martial law was lifted and a new constitution was introduced.
On March 25, 1969, he resigned and handed over power to the commander-in-chief of Pakistan Army, General Yahya Khan, who became president of Pakistan on the same day. In 1970 he held general elections, but just after the elections India attacked Pakistan. Bangladesh was established as an independent republic. Most of the blame was heaped on Yahya and on December 20, 1971 he hastily surrendered his powers to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Bhutto took oath as president of Pakistan on December 20, 1971 and remained the head of the state till August 14, 1973. The military took control of government under General Muhammad Ziaul Haq in 1978.
Zia took the president’s oath on September 16, 1978. He later had Bhutto executed. Zia initially ruled for a year as martial law administrator, and later assumed the post of president of Pakistan. He died in an aircraft crash near Bahawalpur on August 17, 1988.
Chairman of Senate Ghulam Ishaq Khan became the acting president and was formally elected to the position in December 1988. He remained president until 1993. In 1993, with the support of the Pakistan People’s Party, Farooq Leghari won the presidential election against Wasim Sajjad. In November 1996, utilising his powers under Article 58(2b) of the constitution of Pakistan, Leghari dismissed the PPP government of Benazir Bhutto. He remained president till December 2, 1997.
Justice (r) Muhammad Rafiq Tarar took oath as the 11th president of Pakistan on January 1, 1998. Tarar was mostly a figurehead. He was not removed from office when General Pervez Musharraf seized control of government in 1999.
In 1999, General Pervez Musharraf deposed the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif and served the country as chief executive till 2001. He formally became the president on June 20, 2001 as a result of a referendum. On November 3, 2007, Musharraf declared emergency in the country. However, he retired from the military on November 28, 2007. Musharraf remained the president of Pakistan for nine months after taking off his uniform. He resigned on August 18, 2008 after the ruling coalition decided to impeach him.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
The drop scene
The drop scene —Talat Masood
Source: Daily Times
August 14, 2008
President Musharraf is so blinded by his obstinacy that he fails to acknowledge that his era is over and that he has to resign to save the country, his former institution and the presidency from any further humiliation and damage
Battle lines have been clearly drawn and the coalition government and President Pervez Musharraf are set on a collision course. In a landmark decision to impeach Musharraf, the main political parties are putting up a united front to remove the president whom they consider illegitimate and unconstitutional. The call for impeachment was a major incentive for holding the coalition together. The outcome of the impeachment process could be a defining phase in Pakistan’s chequered history that could determine the future course of the country.
The current struggle has to be seen in a broader context — it has been going on for several decades for the supremacy of civil democratic forces over the military. It has intensified over the last fifteen months and is reaching its climax, but not necessarily its end. No doubt, Musharraf’s obstinacy has given it an impetus and sharpened the civil-military divide. It has also brought to the fore movements for change among different segments of society in different forms.
The judicial crisis, the lawyers’ movement, the media revolution, the partial awakening of civil society and the rise of militancy are all part of this struggle between the forces of status quo and the agents of change. Political consciousness has been stimulated by these happenings and has created a group of people with shared grievances and resentments, albeit seeking different solutions.
For example, in FATA and the NWFP, it has taken a violent and dangerous course due to first the Soviet and later the American occupation of Afghanistan. Militants and radical groups wearing the garb of religion are trying to find answers to the myriad problems of communities where successive governments have failed in providing security, justice and employment opportunities. The Taliban are imposing their will through coercive tactics and use of force in the conservative cultural society of the NWFP and FATA.
The lawyers and civil society are struggling for rule of law and constitutionalism by galvanising public opinion in a more urban environment and softer cultural context.
No doubt removal of the president through impeachment or preferably by his resignation will be a major step in moving the democratic process forward. But there is a long and tortuous road the country has to travel before this change can fully materialise and stabilise the country.
Musharraf’s departure does not imply that army’s role in Pakistan would disappear or that the grave threat of expanding militancy and dire economic problems will ease. The military in the foreseeable future will continue to play a central role in fighting the war on terror in the tribal belt and the NWFP, countering insurgency in Balochistan and keeping a watchful eye on the eastern border. Deep and expanding involvement of the US and NATO in Afghanistan and now in our tribal belt will also raise the profile of the military and the security establishment. It will remain the major recipient of the national budget and foreign aid.
Multiple security threats, however, demand high professional competence and undivided attention by the military to its profession. As recent events have demonstrated, the Frontier Corps and the army are weak in counterinsurgency operations and will have to be better equipped and trained to succeed. With the resurgence of insurgency in Kashmir, the eastern front too would need the army’s full attention.
Prolonged involvement of the military in governance and politics has alienated the masses. Winning back the confidence and earning the respect of the people is crucial in fighting internal militancy and external threats. Democracy is now an institutional and security imperative for the military as much as it is for the country.
Nonetheless, take-over by the military is no more a viable option due to its current professional compulsions. The military cannot deliver on the economic front either. The problems of Balochistan, Sindh, the tribal belt and the NWFP demand political solutions rather than mere reliance on military solutions, and politicians, at least in the long run, would be better equipped for that purpose. In Punjab, there could be a strong reaction from the public and civil society. Mediapersons and lawyers would all join the political forces in case a lawful government is arbitrarily removed.
All these factors clearly indicate that the army will at least for now stay away from politics, but its inherent power and role in the country has not diminished. Disengagement is essentially tactical and not necessarily strategic. For making the process irreversible, the civilian government will have to also acquire performance legitimacy by considerably improving governance and strengthening democratic institutions, especially the parliament and cabinet.
Clearly, the Army would not want President Musharraf’s impeachment and would prefer his resignation. As Musharraf has worn two hats — President and COAS — his trial would directly or indirectly drag the army into the impeachment process and could be embarrassing and even intolerable.
In any case, Musharraf has hardly any options left but to quit. His main political supporter, the PMLQ is tottering although putting up a façade. It is most likely that those on the fringes of the PMLQ and the PPPS would side with impeachment to whiten their sins and to be seen on the right side of the divide for their political future. Of course, only the diehard among them like Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and company would stick with the president as their politics is all about patronage and Biradari and has less to do with principles or serving the masses.
The Bangladesh model will be equally dysfunctional and unacceptable, with the same problems that would arise with an overt military takeover. After all, the BD model is a somewhat innovative way of the army retaining control and supremacy over the civilians in the garb of bringing political stability and economic growth. Pakistan’s current problems are more of a political and social nature as mentioned earlier.
President Bush may continue being loyal at the personal level to President Musharraf. But the Bush administration clearly sees that the situation in Pakistan has dramatically altered since February and power today is diffused, which is characteristic of all democratic governments. The US will have to relate to the new power structure, however weak and incoherent it may be. In fact, the Musharraf-centric policy of the Bush administration has discredited the war on terror and makes it difficult for the current civilian government to market to the people that it is their war and our greatest challenge.
President Musharraf is so blinded by his obstinacy that he fails to acknowledge that his era is over and that he has to resign to save the country, his former institution and the presidency from any further humiliation and damage.
_______________________
The writer is a retired Lieutenant General of the Pakistan Army. He can be reached at talat@comsats.net.pk
Source: Daily Times
August 14, 2008
President Musharraf is so blinded by his obstinacy that he fails to acknowledge that his era is over and that he has to resign to save the country, his former institution and the presidency from any further humiliation and damage
Battle lines have been clearly drawn and the coalition government and President Pervez Musharraf are set on a collision course. In a landmark decision to impeach Musharraf, the main political parties are putting up a united front to remove the president whom they consider illegitimate and unconstitutional. The call for impeachment was a major incentive for holding the coalition together. The outcome of the impeachment process could be a defining phase in Pakistan’s chequered history that could determine the future course of the country.
The current struggle has to be seen in a broader context — it has been going on for several decades for the supremacy of civil democratic forces over the military. It has intensified over the last fifteen months and is reaching its climax, but not necessarily its end. No doubt, Musharraf’s obstinacy has given it an impetus and sharpened the civil-military divide. It has also brought to the fore movements for change among different segments of society in different forms.
The judicial crisis, the lawyers’ movement, the media revolution, the partial awakening of civil society and the rise of militancy are all part of this struggle between the forces of status quo and the agents of change. Political consciousness has been stimulated by these happenings and has created a group of people with shared grievances and resentments, albeit seeking different solutions.
For example, in FATA and the NWFP, it has taken a violent and dangerous course due to first the Soviet and later the American occupation of Afghanistan. Militants and radical groups wearing the garb of religion are trying to find answers to the myriad problems of communities where successive governments have failed in providing security, justice and employment opportunities. The Taliban are imposing their will through coercive tactics and use of force in the conservative cultural society of the NWFP and FATA.
The lawyers and civil society are struggling for rule of law and constitutionalism by galvanising public opinion in a more urban environment and softer cultural context.
No doubt removal of the president through impeachment or preferably by his resignation will be a major step in moving the democratic process forward. But there is a long and tortuous road the country has to travel before this change can fully materialise and stabilise the country.
Musharraf’s departure does not imply that army’s role in Pakistan would disappear or that the grave threat of expanding militancy and dire economic problems will ease. The military in the foreseeable future will continue to play a central role in fighting the war on terror in the tribal belt and the NWFP, countering insurgency in Balochistan and keeping a watchful eye on the eastern border. Deep and expanding involvement of the US and NATO in Afghanistan and now in our tribal belt will also raise the profile of the military and the security establishment. It will remain the major recipient of the national budget and foreign aid.
Multiple security threats, however, demand high professional competence and undivided attention by the military to its profession. As recent events have demonstrated, the Frontier Corps and the army are weak in counterinsurgency operations and will have to be better equipped and trained to succeed. With the resurgence of insurgency in Kashmir, the eastern front too would need the army’s full attention.
Prolonged involvement of the military in governance and politics has alienated the masses. Winning back the confidence and earning the respect of the people is crucial in fighting internal militancy and external threats. Democracy is now an institutional and security imperative for the military as much as it is for the country.
Nonetheless, take-over by the military is no more a viable option due to its current professional compulsions. The military cannot deliver on the economic front either. The problems of Balochistan, Sindh, the tribal belt and the NWFP demand political solutions rather than mere reliance on military solutions, and politicians, at least in the long run, would be better equipped for that purpose. In Punjab, there could be a strong reaction from the public and civil society. Mediapersons and lawyers would all join the political forces in case a lawful government is arbitrarily removed.
All these factors clearly indicate that the army will at least for now stay away from politics, but its inherent power and role in the country has not diminished. Disengagement is essentially tactical and not necessarily strategic. For making the process irreversible, the civilian government will have to also acquire performance legitimacy by considerably improving governance and strengthening democratic institutions, especially the parliament and cabinet.
Clearly, the Army would not want President Musharraf’s impeachment and would prefer his resignation. As Musharraf has worn two hats — President and COAS — his trial would directly or indirectly drag the army into the impeachment process and could be embarrassing and even intolerable.
In any case, Musharraf has hardly any options left but to quit. His main political supporter, the PMLQ is tottering although putting up a façade. It is most likely that those on the fringes of the PMLQ and the PPPS would side with impeachment to whiten their sins and to be seen on the right side of the divide for their political future. Of course, only the diehard among them like Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and company would stick with the president as their politics is all about patronage and Biradari and has less to do with principles or serving the masses.
President Bush may continue being loyal at the personal level to President Musharraf. But the Bush administration clearly sees that the situation in Pakistan has dramatically altered since February and power today is diffused, which is characteristic of all democratic governments. The US will have to relate to the new power structure, however weak and incoherent it may be. In fact, the Musharraf-centric policy of the Bush administration has discredited the war on terror and makes it difficult for the current civilian government to market to the people that it is their war and our greatest challenge.
President Musharraf is so blinded by his obstinacy that he fails to acknowledge that his era is over and that he has to resign to save the country, his former institution and the presidency from any further humiliation and damage.
_______________________
The writer is a retired Lieutenant General of the Pakistan Army. He can be reached at talat@comsats.net.pk
Spread of terrorism in Asia
Spread of terrorism in Asia
Source: Editorial, Daily Times
August 13, 2008
The adviser to the prime minister on Interior Affairs, Mr Rehman Malik, on Monday held a detailed meeting with his Chinese counterpart and State Counsellor, Meng Jianzhu, in Beijing and expressed condolences for those who lost their lives in recent explosions in the province of Xinjiang, China. He assured him that Pakistan would not relent in its resolve to fight terrorism as a frontline state and explained to him the strategy Pakistan was employing to remove the centre of international terrorism located in its Tribal Areas.
This was in order. Not many months ago, President Pervez Musharraf had himself informed the nation that among the foreign “Islamist” terrorists undergoing training in the Tribal Areas were also a number of Uighur rebels from Xinjiang. Subsequently it is believed that China had reason to be satisfied because Pakistan undertook to apprehend the said terrorists and eliminate them. Adviser Malik’s expression of assurance was also timely because Xinjiang was once again made a target of violence by the terrorists twice in one week before the beginning of the Beijing Olympics on August 8.
The spread of “Islamist” terrorism in China’s neighbourhood in part inspired the setting up of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) five years ago. The countries that joined it included China, Russia, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, all victims of terrorist violence. The SCO consults on extremism and irredentism in the region and evolves strategies of resistance against it. But the pattern in the region of these states differs from the one prevalent elsewhere. The group contains states that are either non-Muslim or are ruled by Muslim dictators. Apparently, both categories are better able to confront the phenomenon of “Islamist” terrorism than Muslim-democratic states.
Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have been targeted by “Islamist” groups turned violent with outside help coming mostly from Afghanistan and Pakistan, but the draconian methods employed by President Karimov in Uzbekistan and President Rakhmonov in Tajikistan have prevented the terrorist groups from achieving any success. This observation, however, has to be qualified by the significant fact that movements for democracy in these states tend to be on the same side of the barricades as the Al Qaeda-supported groups.
In Russia, the “Islamist” terrorists have not succeeded because of the revulsion that the non-Muslim population feels for these acts of violence. In fact the population of Russia has voted overwhelmingly for the political order created by President Putin to defeat the terrorism which spread as far as Moscow with the help of the Chechens in the south of the Russian Federation. China, too, comes in this category, but it is located too close to ground zero of terrorism where Al Qaeda is located these days and therefore needs to be more vigilant. To some extent, India belongs in the same category.
America and Europe were the prime targets of “Islamist” terrorism, not the Muslim states. In both the regions the populations supported the legislation of tough laws and institutional vigilance to pre-empt attacks after they peaked in 2005. Now the aftermath of these tough measures is being borne by expatriate Muslims there. At the cost of changing their quality of life, however, the non-Muslims populations have supported their states in confronting the individuals who infiltrate and attempt acts of violence. But the pattern is unfortunately different in the Muslim states with majority Muslim populations.
In Pakistan and Bangladesh, a growing trend in favour of “Islamism” reflects sympathy for the terrorists groups. In both cases, the military has been dominating the political system and the terrorists lean to the convenient strategy of becoming a part of the struggle for democratisation. Thus two trends conjoin to form a prodigious political force in favour of the consolidation of the terrorist groups. It is an irony that in Pakistan the man who fought the terrorists, President Pervez Musharraf, is being impeached while an ascendant Al Qaeda, which should have been on the run, puts forward its own charge sheet to supplement the one being brought up in parliament against him.
It is not only Iraq in the Middle East but all of Asia which is in the grip of “Islamist” terrorism. In Indonesia, the pattern is the same as in Pakistan and Bangladesh. There are religious parties and groups which insist that Al Qaeda is no threat and that a delay in the enforcement of sharia might lead to more rather than less violence in the country. Only in the Philippines is the Abu Sayyaf group — named after a warlord of Afghanistan who is now in the American camp — growing because of the jungle conditions in which it survives and because of outside help.
Finally, “Islamist” terrorism is a phenomenon that attacks and destabilises the Muslim states which are struggling for democracy. Because of the quest for sharia in Muslim societies, the terrorists find a higher level of popular acceptance of their cause among the Muslims who ironically are also killed in their suicide-bombings. Significantly, however, when they kill people in non-Muslim states, they invariably meet resistance they can’t cope with. *
Source: Editorial, Daily Times
August 13, 2008
The adviser to the prime minister on Interior Affairs, Mr Rehman Malik, on Monday held a detailed meeting with his Chinese counterpart and State Counsellor, Meng Jianzhu, in Beijing and expressed condolences for those who lost their lives in recent explosions in the province of Xinjiang, China. He assured him that Pakistan would not relent in its resolve to fight terrorism as a frontline state and explained to him the strategy Pakistan was employing to remove the centre of international terrorism located in its Tribal Areas.
This was in order. Not many months ago, President Pervez Musharraf had himself informed the nation that among the foreign “Islamist” terrorists undergoing training in the Tribal Areas were also a number of Uighur rebels from Xinjiang. Subsequently it is believed that China had reason to be satisfied because Pakistan undertook to apprehend the said terrorists and eliminate them. Adviser Malik’s expression of assurance was also timely because Xinjiang was once again made a target of violence by the terrorists twice in one week before the beginning of the Beijing Olympics on August 8.
The spread of “Islamist” terrorism in China’s neighbourhood in part inspired the setting up of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) five years ago. The countries that joined it included China, Russia, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, all victims of terrorist violence. The SCO consults on extremism and irredentism in the region and evolves strategies of resistance against it. But the pattern in the region of these states differs from the one prevalent elsewhere. The group contains states that are either non-Muslim or are ruled by Muslim dictators. Apparently, both categories are better able to confront the phenomenon of “Islamist” terrorism than Muslim-democratic states.
Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have been targeted by “Islamist” groups turned violent with outside help coming mostly from Afghanistan and Pakistan, but the draconian methods employed by President Karimov in Uzbekistan and President Rakhmonov in Tajikistan have prevented the terrorist groups from achieving any success. This observation, however, has to be qualified by the significant fact that movements for democracy in these states tend to be on the same side of the barricades as the Al Qaeda-supported groups.
In Russia, the “Islamist” terrorists have not succeeded because of the revulsion that the non-Muslim population feels for these acts of violence. In fact the population of Russia has voted overwhelmingly for the political order created by President Putin to defeat the terrorism which spread as far as Moscow with the help of the Chechens in the south of the Russian Federation. China, too, comes in this category, but it is located too close to ground zero of terrorism where Al Qaeda is located these days and therefore needs to be more vigilant. To some extent, India belongs in the same category.
America and Europe were the prime targets of “Islamist” terrorism, not the Muslim states. In both the regions the populations supported the legislation of tough laws and institutional vigilance to pre-empt attacks after they peaked in 2005. Now the aftermath of these tough measures is being borne by expatriate Muslims there. At the cost of changing their quality of life, however, the non-Muslims populations have supported their states in confronting the individuals who infiltrate and attempt acts of violence. But the pattern is unfortunately different in the Muslim states with majority Muslim populations.
It is not only Iraq in the Middle East but all of Asia which is in the grip of “Islamist” terrorism. In Indonesia, the pattern is the same as in Pakistan and Bangladesh. There are religious parties and groups which insist that Al Qaeda is no threat and that a delay in the enforcement of sharia might lead to more rather than less violence in the country. Only in the Philippines is the Abu Sayyaf group — named after a warlord of Afghanistan who is now in the American camp — growing because of the jungle conditions in which it survives and because of outside help.
Finally, “Islamist” terrorism is a phenomenon that attacks and destabilises the Muslim states which are struggling for democracy. Because of the quest for sharia in Muslim societies, the terrorists find a higher level of popular acceptance of their cause among the Muslims who ironically are also killed in their suicide-bombings. Significantly, however, when they kill people in non-Muslim states, they invariably meet resistance they can’t cope with. *
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Possible political scenarios in Pakistan
Possible political scenarios
Source: Gulf Times
August 9, 2008
President Musharraf
Pakistan’s ruling coalition led by the party of slain former prime minister Benazir Bhutto will move to impeach President Pervez Musharraf nearly nine years after he seized power in a military coup. Here are some details of the process and possible political scenarios seen by political analysts and constitutional experts:
Constitutional provisions:
Source: Gulf Times
August 9, 2008
President Musharraf
Pakistan’s ruling coalition led by the party of slain former prime minister Benazir Bhutto will move to impeach President Pervez Musharraf nearly nine years after he seized power in a military coup. Here are some details of the process and possible political scenarios seen by political analysts and constitutional experts:
Constitutional provisions:
- Under Pakistan’s constitution, half the members of either house of the parliament, National Assembly and Senate can move a resolution seeking removal of the president on grounds he is physically or mentally unfit or to seek his impeachment for violating the constitution or gross misconduct.
- The Speaker of the National Assembly within three days of the receipt of the notice for removal or impeachment of the president will transmit the notice to the president.
- The Speaker shall call the two houses of the parliament to meet in a joint sitting after a week but less than two weeks after the Speaker receives the notice.
- The joint sitting may investigate the charges against the president.
- The president shall have the right to appear or send a representative to defend him before the joint sitting.
- If, after investigation, the joint sitting passes a resolution with a two-thirds majority against the president, he shall cease to hold office immediately.
- The constitution does not set any timeline for passing a resolution and experts say it may take weeks if the joint sitting decided to investigate the charges.
- While Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto’s widower and head of the coalition, and his major partner, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, did not set any date for submission of the resolution against Musharraf, a coalition official said the National Assembly is likely to be called to meet on Aug. 11.
- Likewise, all four provincial assemblies will be called this month and resolutions passed to ask Musharraf to seek a vote of confidence from them, failing which impeachment proceedings will be started against him.
- The four-party coalition requires support of around 295 parliamentarians to get the impeachment motion passed from 442 seats in the combined National Assembly and Senate.
- The existing strength of the coalition in the parliament is 277.
- The coalition hopes around 20 parliamentarians from tribal areas, where opposition to Musharraf for his support to the US-led war on terrorism is strong, will support the resolution. They also hope to win support from dissidents among pro-Musharraf parties.
- The pro-Musharraf parties say the coalition lacks required numbers to impeach Musharraf and there are many dissident members among the coalition, including Makhdoom Amin Fahim, Bhutto’s former top aide who was passed over for the premiership. Intense horse-trading is expected on both sides.
How things could play out:
- Musharraf may resign before the impeachment motion is moved as he has said previously, though his allies say the the chances of him standing down are remote.
- Musharraf could use presidential powers to dismiss the government and the parliament and appoint a caretaker government. Analysts say he would need the army’s support.
- General Ashfaq Kayani, hand-picked by Musharraf to replace him as army chief in November, is seen close to the president but has taken several steps to withdraw the army from the civilian affairs. The army has given no indication whom it will side with.
- The army may ask Musharraf to dissolve the parliament before resigning himself as was done in 1993 when both the president and prime minister resigned. Analysts say a caretaker government may be installed to oversee new elections within 90 days as provided in the constitution or an army-backed government may be appointed for a year or more, as done in Bangladesh, to weed out tainted politicians before calling the elections.
- The army may impose martial law though many analysts believe that possibility is remote.–Reuters
Saturday, January 19, 2008
The perils of extremism
The perils of extremism
ANM Nurul Haque
January 19, 2008
Source: Daily Star
The suicide gun and bomb arrack on Benazir Bhutto killing her along with more than two dozen of her party activists compels us to think yet once again on the menace of endemic extremism. The people of Bangladesh hardly have any reason to feel comfortable in the thought that the government has tackled extremism effectively and thus we have got rid of militancy menace.
Defining extremism has always been a difficult exercise. It is a pejorative term used to describe the action or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society or otherwise claimed to violate common standards of ethics and reciprocity.
Extremism, particularly its religious variant has risen alarmingly in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh in the past few years which was in the making over a decade.
Some people may think that religious extremism has gone off with the execution of six key militant leaders of the banned Islamist outfit Jamatul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) including its chief Shaikh Abdur Rahman and his deputy Siddiqul Islam alias Bangla Bhai. All of them were convicted and sentenced to death for killing two judges in Jhalakathi in a suicide bomb attack on November 14, 2005.
Ever since the countrywide series of bomb blasts on August 17, 2005, RAB and police have been nabbing militants or busting their dens. The youngsters arrested by the RAB recently from different places are reported to have been enrolled as new members of the JMB. We have, therefore, serious reasons to apprehend that many of such members have been enrolled and trained by the JMB leaders to carry on its mission.
After the terror attacks on Twin-Towers, the US government enacted the Patriot Act and following the London blasts the UK government enacted the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 with a view to tackling the terrorists.
In a bid to combat extremism, the UK government has asked the local groups in the multi-cultural British society to evolve ideas and plans for anti-extremism projects. The government has also declared that the local authorities will be able to bid for five million pound starling for trial schemes to help the Muslim communities to tackle extremism.
Our two neighbouring countries, Pakistan and India are quite unfortunate to witness the ugliest face of extremism repeatedly. Before assassination on December 27, Benazir Bhutto faced another worst suicide attack in Karachi within hours of her return from an eight-year exile which killed at least 138 people.
Before diminution of shockwave of this dastardly attack on Benazir, a bomb blast in a mosque in Peshwar on the day of holy Eid-ul-Azha left 56 people killed and scores injured. This suicide bombing inside the mosque was carried targeting a former interior minister of Pakistan.
A suicide bomber killed at least 15 people, including a senior judge, when the bomber blew himself up inside a court in Quetta, Pakistan. The explosion hit when hundreds of people were inside the compound for court cases and police inquiries.
Seven bombs went off on July 11, 2006 in Mumbai's rush hour trains at seven different spots causing large-scale death and devastation. Hell broke loose again on February 19, killing as many as 67 people, mostly Pakistani nationals, when two powerful bombs went off in a Pakistan bound friendship train at Panipath, India.
Since the terrorism knows no territory, these tragedies with India and Pakistan, is no doubt an alarm for Bangladesh. The execution of six JMB kingpins, certainly not go all-out to rid the country of militancy menace. Religious extremism which has made deep penetration, might has developed cross-regional network. The caretaker government must realise the enormity of the danger that is looming large in this region and posing serious threat to peace and security.
The root of extremism is embedded in certain political, economic and social deprivation. Extremism essentially reflects on long but unsuccessful struggle to bring about changes in the state structures. This is a prime cause of frightening rise of extremism in this region.
The failure of Pakistani government in containing religious extremism in the country lies in the fact that, it did not tackle the crisis effecting social reform and political liberalisation.
The reasons of rising religious extremism in Bangladesh, besides other things, are violation of rights of the poor and use of religion in politics. Unless the government ensures the rights of the poor through poverty alleviation and prevent the use of religion in politics, no other things will help people to wean away from the conservative hard-line attitude that is sustaining extremism in Bangladesh.
Redesigning of madrasa education, which is also liable to breed religious extremism to certain extent is imperative to save the young minds from the clutch of religious extremists. The lack of proper education and enlightened governance has enabled extremists to create pockets of support by manipulating religious teachings.
One cannot be oblivious of the fact that, the extremists have been exploiting the religious faith and sentiment of the youths and also the education that they are being imparted in madrasas. Many young minds are opening up to extremists thought specially when getting their lessons of religion being administered not by scholars but by those who have mixed their political agenda with the message of religion.
Religious extremism -- be it Islamist or Hindutva, or any other -- contribute much to the retrogressive development of the society by way of spreading terrorism. The war on terrorism has given a big boost to their dangerous agenda. The boundaries of extremism have overlapped on one end with the traditional religious political parties and on the other, with the militants.
Much remains to be done so far as measures aimed at containing the religious extremism. The assassination of Benazir multiplies the need for correcting all the faults so far done by the immediate past government here in tackling the menace before it attempts to destabilise the state structures.
The immediate past government did a lot of things for arresting the top JMB leaders but hardly did anything of substance to trace the patrons due to their alleged link with them. Demolition of the political links of the religious extremists should be on the top of the agenda, which can be dealt with severely by the caretaker government, as it has no obligation to the vote bank.
What now actually needed for containment of extremists is better performance of all the law enforcing agencies and, of course, a democratic justice delivery system. However, care must be taken in the fight against extremism, as increased repression and coercion are likely to feed it rather than reduce it.
ANM Nurul Haque is a columnist of The Daily Star.
ANM Nurul Haque
January 19, 2008
Source: Daily Star
The suicide gun and bomb arrack on Benazir Bhutto killing her along with more than two dozen of her party activists compels us to think yet once again on the menace of endemic extremism. The people of Bangladesh hardly have any reason to feel comfortable in the thought that the government has tackled extremism effectively and thus we have got rid of militancy menace.
Defining extremism has always been a difficult exercise. It is a pejorative term used to describe the action or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society or otherwise claimed to violate common standards of ethics and reciprocity.
Extremism, particularly its religious variant has risen alarmingly in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh in the past few years which was in the making over a decade.
Some people may think that religious extremism has gone off with the execution of six key militant leaders of the banned Islamist outfit Jamatul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) including its chief Shaikh Abdur Rahman and his deputy Siddiqul Islam alias Bangla Bhai. All of them were convicted and sentenced to death for killing two judges in Jhalakathi in a suicide bomb attack on November 14, 2005.
Ever since the countrywide series of bomb blasts on August 17, 2005, RAB and police have been nabbing militants or busting their dens. The youngsters arrested by the RAB recently from different places are reported to have been enrolled as new members of the JMB. We have, therefore, serious reasons to apprehend that many of such members have been enrolled and trained by the JMB leaders to carry on its mission.
After the terror attacks on Twin-Towers, the US government enacted the Patriot Act and following the London blasts the UK government enacted the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 with a view to tackling the terrorists.
In a bid to combat extremism, the UK government has asked the local groups in the multi-cultural British society to evolve ideas and plans for anti-extremism projects. The government has also declared that the local authorities will be able to bid for five million pound starling for trial schemes to help the Muslim communities to tackle extremism.
Our two neighbouring countries, Pakistan and India are quite unfortunate to witness the ugliest face of extremism repeatedly. Before assassination on December 27, Benazir Bhutto faced another worst suicide attack in Karachi within hours of her return from an eight-year exile which killed at least 138 people.
Before diminution of shockwave of this dastardly attack on Benazir, a bomb blast in a mosque in Peshwar on the day of holy Eid-ul-Azha left 56 people killed and scores injured. This suicide bombing inside the mosque was carried targeting a former interior minister of Pakistan.
A suicide bomber killed at least 15 people, including a senior judge, when the bomber blew himself up inside a court in Quetta, Pakistan. The explosion hit when hundreds of people were inside the compound for court cases and police inquiries.
Seven bombs went off on July 11, 2006 in Mumbai's rush hour trains at seven different spots causing large-scale death and devastation. Hell broke loose again on February 19, killing as many as 67 people, mostly Pakistani nationals, when two powerful bombs went off in a Pakistan bound friendship train at Panipath, India.
Since the terrorism knows no territory, these tragedies with India and Pakistan, is no doubt an alarm for Bangladesh. The execution of six JMB kingpins, certainly not go all-out to rid the country of militancy menace. Religious extremism which has made deep penetration, might has developed cross-regional network. The caretaker government must realise the enormity of the danger that is looming large in this region and posing serious threat to peace and security.
The root of extremism is embedded in certain political, economic and social deprivation. Extremism essentially reflects on long but unsuccessful struggle to bring about changes in the state structures. This is a prime cause of frightening rise of extremism in this region.
The failure of Pakistani government in containing religious extremism in the country lies in the fact that, it did not tackle the crisis effecting social reform and political liberalisation.
The reasons of rising religious extremism in Bangladesh, besides other things, are violation of rights of the poor and use of religion in politics. Unless the government ensures the rights of the poor through poverty alleviation and prevent the use of religion in politics, no other things will help people to wean away from the conservative hard-line attitude that is sustaining extremism in Bangladesh.
Redesigning of madrasa education, which is also liable to breed religious extremism to certain extent is imperative to save the young minds from the clutch of religious extremists. The lack of proper education and enlightened governance has enabled extremists to create pockets of support by manipulating religious teachings.
One cannot be oblivious of the fact that, the extremists have been exploiting the religious faith and sentiment of the youths and also the education that they are being imparted in madrasas. Many young minds are opening up to extremists thought specially when getting their lessons of religion being administered not by scholars but by those who have mixed their political agenda with the message of religion.
Religious extremism -- be it Islamist or Hindutva, or any other -- contribute much to the retrogressive development of the society by way of spreading terrorism. The war on terrorism has given a big boost to their dangerous agenda. The boundaries of extremism have overlapped on one end with the traditional religious political parties and on the other, with the militants.
Much remains to be done so far as measures aimed at containing the religious extremism. The assassination of Benazir multiplies the need for correcting all the faults so far done by the immediate past government here in tackling the menace before it attempts to destabilise the state structures.
The immediate past government did a lot of things for arresting the top JMB leaders but hardly did anything of substance to trace the patrons due to their alleged link with them. Demolition of the political links of the religious extremists should be on the top of the agenda, which can be dealt with severely by the caretaker government, as it has no obligation to the vote bank.
What now actually needed for containment of extremists is better performance of all the law enforcing agencies and, of course, a democratic justice delivery system. However, care must be taken in the fight against extremism, as increased repression and coercion are likely to feed it rather than reduce it.
ANM Nurul Haque is a columnist of The Daily Star.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Interview with Pervez Hoodbhoy
INTERVIEW WITH PERVEZ HOODBHOY
STEFANIA MAURIZI for IL VENERDI of LA REPUBBLICA (in Italian)
Q: Let's start with the tragedy of Bhutto assassination. Today, international media remind us she was the first woman to become the PM of an Islamic country, she was a democratic leader, etc. Nonetheless, she was the scion of a feudal family, which was primarily responsible for making Pakistan an atomic power and she was known for the authoritarian control of her party. Looking back, how do you judge Benazir Bhutto?
A: Having first known Benazir Bhutto from high school in Karachi, and then later in Cambridge (Massachussetts), I am deeply saddened by her assassination. But, although the international media paint her as someone who could have led Pakistan into the modern age, the truth is very different. Her two tenures as prime minister were a nightmare of autocratic government and mis-governance. Billions disappeared from foreign aid. A Swiss court found her guilty of money laundering in 2003. Ms. Bhutto owned mansions and palaces across the world. She even tried to steal land from my (public) university to feed the rapacious appetite of her party members.
Even during school days, Benazir thought she had been born to rule. More importantly, she made not the slightest effort to change the feudal character of Pakistani politics and society. The Bhuttos own vast tracts of agricultural land in Sindh that is worked upon by serfs. Although she promised to bring democracy to Pakistan, after returning to Pakistan, Ms. Bhutto made clear that for a few table scraps she would be happy to team up with General Musharraf under the hopelessly absurd US plan to give our military government a civilian face. Her party, the Pakistan Peoples Party was her fiefdom. She appointed herself as "chairperson for life". Reflecting the mindset of a feudal princess, she even named her successors to be male members from her family: her 19-year son, who is a student at Oxford and knows nothing about Pakistani culture, as well as her phenomenally corrupt husband, initially known as Mr Ten Percent and later as Mr. Thirty Percent.
Q: Was Ms. Bhutto a model for Pakistani women?
A: She was courageous and single-minded. And she showed that a woman could be the head of a conservative Islamic state. Nevertheless, it is hard to see what she wanted beyond personal power. Although she said that she was fighting for grand causes, I'm still trying to figure out what they were. She certainly did nothing for Pakistani women during her two stints in power and left untouched the horrific Hudood laws, according to which a rape victim needs to produce 4 witnesses to the act of penetration (else she could be punished for fornication). Nor did she try to overturn the Pakistani blasphemy law that prescribes death as the minimum penalty for those convicted of insulting the prophet of Islam or his companions. As for democracy: she had been desperate to do a deal with Musharraf who dangled over her head the many corruption cases that she was charged with. But he proved too clever for her and she was forced into the opposition.
In foreign policy, she played footsie with the army. It could do whatever it liked, including making nuclear weapons, sending Islamic militants into Kashmir, and organizing the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban. In 2002 she regretted having signed the document authorizing funds for the funding Taliban forces for seizing Kandahar. Ms. Bhutto makes an excellent martyr. In her death she will doubtlessly play a more positive role than when alive.
Q: Al Qaeda was immediately blamed for Bhutto assassination. However, many people hated her: Musharraf, the Army, and the infamous ISI, which in 1990 removed Bhutto from power after she had replaced General Hameed Gul, the man who invented the Taliban. Do you believe that Al Qaeda was really responsible for killing Benazir Bhutto? Who is going to gain from Bhutto's death?
A: There are different possibilities and much confusion. But some facts are certain. There definitely were gunshots, and this was followed by a suicide blast. Now, I do not think that suicide bombers can be bought with any number of rupees. Only a religious fanatic lured by heavenly rewards would blow himself up. Therefore Al-Qaida, the Taliban, or other Islamic jihadist groups are strong possibilities. They always hated Bhutto, but even more after she announced in Washington that, if elected prime minister, she would fight them even more vigorously than Musharraf. Of course, rogue elements of Pakistan's intelligence agencies, who are also strong Islamists, and who lie deeply hidden within the establishment,could also have done it. They have a stock of suicide bombers available to them, as evidenced by the success they have had in organizing suicide attacks upon army commandos as well as their own colleagues.
So did Islamists of one or the other flavour do it? Maybe, but the waters have been muddied by the government. First, publicly available photographs and videos show a modern-looking gunman accompanying the suicide bomber. He fired three shots, heard by all present, at least one of which hit Bhutto. Some say that there was a second sharpshooter in a building too. On the other hand, the government initially insisted she died from concussion and not a bullet wound - an obvious lie immediately refuted by those in the same car as Bhutto. Second, in just an hour after the assassination, the police washed away all the bloody evidence with water hoses. So, it is quite possible that non-Islamists in the government have somehow used brainwashed suicide bombers, trained in mosques and madrassas, to do their dirty job. But, as in the JFK murder, the truth will never be known.
As for the gainers and losers: Islamist groups saw Bhutto as a tool of America that would be used against them, and a leader who could secularize Pakistan. Plus, she was a woman and popular. But Musharraf and his political party, the PML(Q), have also gained because a political rival has been eliminated. The losers are those Pakistanis who wish for a secular, modern Pakistan and not one that is run by mullahs. Although she never delivered on her promises, her followers never lost faith.
Q: There is a lot of concern about the future of Pakistan. How real is the threat of an Islamic takeover, in your opinion?
A: It has already been taken over! Twenty five years ago the Pakistani state began pushing Islam on to its people as a matter of policy. Prayers in government departments were deemed compulsory, punishments were meted out to those who did not fast in Ramadan, selection for academic posts required that the candidate demonstrate knowledge of Islamic teachings, and jihad was propagated through schoolbooks. Today government intervention is no longer needed because of a spontaneous groundswell of Islamic zeal. But now the state is realizing that it shot itself in the foot. The fanatical jihadists it created have turned against it. It is supreme irony that the Pakistan Army - whose men were recruited under the banner of jihad and which saw itself as the fighting arm of Islam - is now frequently targeted by suicide bombers who are fighting a jihad to bring even stricter Islam. It has lost a thousand or more men fighting Al-Qaida and the Taliban.
The pace of radicalization has quickened. There are almost daily suicide attacks. This phenomenon was almost unknown in Pakistan before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Now it is common in major cities as well as tribal areas. The targets have been the Pakistan army, police, incumbent and retired government leaders, and rival Islamic sects. But this is just the tip of the iceberg; we'll see much more in years ahead.
Q: Ideally, what do you want to see happen in the next few weeks?
A: I want Musharraf to go - resign or somehow be removed, preferably without bloodshed. I want the independent judiciary restored, a new neutral caretaker government installed for overseeing free and fair elections, and then elections that would decide upon the new parliament and prime minister. This will not immediately solve Pakistan's fundamental problems - army dominance, maldistribution of wealth, religious fanaticism - but it would get Pakistan on the track to democracy instead of the self-destruction it is racing towards.
Q: People in Washington are increasingly frustrated with Musharraf's counterterrorism efforts, however they think there are no alternatives to Musharraf. What do you think about this?
A: The Americans have tunnel vision. They want lackeys like Musharraf who do their bidding, although here too there is deception at work. They know, but choose to forget, that Pakistani military leaders, Musharraf included,are the makers of the jihadist monster. In 1999, after Musharraf launched the secret Kargil operation in Kashmir, the United Jihad Council celebrated him as a true fighter for Islam. After 911 such praises disappeared, but under his leadership the army still covertly supported jihadist groups and the Taliban in Kashmir and Afghanistan.
Musharraf is extremely unpopular now and the Americans will have to dump him at some point. It is hard to find a pro-Musharraf person anywhere in the country except in the top business circles and the top army leadership. Until recently he ran both the army and the government himself, with the connivance of a rubber-stamp Parliament put in place through rigged elections. When the courts were about to rule that he could not legally be president, Musharraf chose to suspend the constitution and impose emergency rule. He dismissed the Supreme Court and arrested the judges, replacing them with judges who obey his every command. He blocked all independent television channels, and punished the news media for disparaging him or the army. His police arrested thousands of lawyers and pro-democracy activists. He ordered that civilians be tried in closed military courts. This was necessary, he said, to save Pakistan from a rapidly growing Islamist insurgency. But he released 25 Islamic extremists on the day that the judges were arrested. In spite of all this, George W.
Bush called Musharraf "a democrat at heart".
The Americans have shot themselves in the foot by supporting the army consistently for decades. They have lost credibility and respect among Pakistanis. Everybody laughs when they hear that America wants democracy for Pakistan. In this situation, even if Musharraf goes and Gen. Kayani (the new army chief) takes over, the best that American can hope for is for the status quo. This is sad, because America is a great country with many virtues. If only they could get over their hangup of wanting to run the world! It's an impossible task anyway.
Q: In Pakistan what is the man on the street thinking?
A: Almost everyone holds the government responsible for the assassination. Tragically, suicide bombings are not condemned with any particular vigor.There is no strong reaction against the mullahs, madrassas, and jihadis. Perhaps people are afraid to criticize them because this might be seen as a criticism of Islam. Interestingly, in all the street demonstrations I have gone to after the Bhutto assassinations, there was no call for cracking down on extremists. Yesterday I met the lone taxidriver who thought the Islamists did it.
Q: What could be an effective way to fight Al Qaeda and the Taleban in Pakistan?
A: To fight and win this war, Pakistan will need to mobilize both its people and the state. The notion of a power-sharing agreement between the state and Taliban is a non-starter; the spectacular failures of earlier agreements should be a lesson. Instead the government should help create public consensus through open forum discussions, proceed faster on infrastructure development in the tribal areas, and make judicious use of military force - troops only, no air power. This should become every Pakistani's war, not just the army's, and it will have to be fought even if America packs up and goes away. But, as long as Musharraf is president,it will be impossible to get popular support for the war. If presented with a choice between Musharraf and the Taliban, the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis would want the latter - although I am sure they would regret it later.
Q: Let's talk about Pakistan's nukes. There a lot of concern about the possibility that nuclear weapons could end up into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists. Early in December the Washington Post revealed that a small group of U.S. military experts and intelligence analysts convened in Washington for exploring strategies to secure Pakistani nukes if the Pakistani regime falls apart. Their conclusions were very scaring, as,- there are no palatable ways to forcibly ensure the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. What do you think about this?
A: The government says there is absolutely no danger of loose nukes. Pakistan has been sending serving officers of the Strategic Plans Division, which is the agency responsible for handling nuclear weapons, to the United States for training in safety measures (PAL's locking devices,storing procedures, etc). But there's no way of telling if this will be effective. Extremists have already penetrated deep into the army and the intelligence agencies. We now see repeated evidence: for example, last month an unmarked bus carrying employees of the Inter Services Intelligence [Pakistan's secret intelligence], was collecting employees early in the morning. It was boarded by a suicide bomber who blew himself up killing 25. It was an inside job.
And now there are many other such examples, such as that of an army man killing 16 Special Services Group commandos in a suicide attack at Ghazi Barotha. A part of the establishment is clearly at war with another part. There are also scientists, as well as military people, who are radical Islamists. Many questions come to mind: can there be collusion between different field-level commanders, resulting in the hijacking of a nuclear weapon? Could outsider groups develop links with insiders? Given the absence of accurate records of fissile material production, can one be certain that small quantities of highly enriched uranium or weapons grade plutonoium have already not been diverted? I do not know the answers. Nobody does.
[Pervez Hoodbhoy is professor of nuclear and high-energy physics, and chairman of the department of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad]
STEFANIA MAURIZI for IL VENERDI of LA REPUBBLICA (in Italian)
Q: Let's start with the tragedy of Bhutto assassination. Today, international media remind us she was the first woman to become the PM of an Islamic country, she was a democratic leader, etc. Nonetheless, she was the scion of a feudal family, which was primarily responsible for making Pakistan an atomic power and she was known for the authoritarian control of her party. Looking back, how do you judge Benazir Bhutto?
A: Having first known Benazir Bhutto from high school in Karachi, and then later in Cambridge (Massachussetts), I am deeply saddened by her assassination. But, although the international media paint her as someone who could have led Pakistan into the modern age, the truth is very different. Her two tenures as prime minister were a nightmare of autocratic government and mis-governance. Billions disappeared from foreign aid. A Swiss court found her guilty of money laundering in 2003. Ms. Bhutto owned mansions and palaces across the world. She even tried to steal land from my (public) university to feed the rapacious appetite of her party members.
Even during school days, Benazir thought she had been born to rule. More importantly, she made not the slightest effort to change the feudal character of Pakistani politics and society. The Bhuttos own vast tracts of agricultural land in Sindh that is worked upon by serfs. Although she promised to bring democracy to Pakistan, after returning to Pakistan, Ms. Bhutto made clear that for a few table scraps she would be happy to team up with General Musharraf under the hopelessly absurd US plan to give our military government a civilian face. Her party, the Pakistan Peoples Party was her fiefdom. She appointed herself as "chairperson for life". Reflecting the mindset of a feudal princess, she even named her successors to be male members from her family: her 19-year son, who is a student at Oxford and knows nothing about Pakistani culture, as well as her phenomenally corrupt husband, initially known as Mr Ten Percent and later as Mr. Thirty Percent.
Q: Was Ms. Bhutto a model for Pakistani women?
A: She was courageous and single-minded. And she showed that a woman could be the head of a conservative Islamic state. Nevertheless, it is hard to see what she wanted beyond personal power. Although she said that she was fighting for grand causes, I'm still trying to figure out what they were. She certainly did nothing for Pakistani women during her two stints in power and left untouched the horrific Hudood laws, according to which a rape victim needs to produce 4 witnesses to the act of penetration (else she could be punished for fornication). Nor did she try to overturn the Pakistani blasphemy law that prescribes death as the minimum penalty for those convicted of insulting the prophet of Islam or his companions. As for democracy: she had been desperate to do a deal with Musharraf who dangled over her head the many corruption cases that she was charged with. But he proved too clever for her and she was forced into the opposition.
In foreign policy, she played footsie with the army. It could do whatever it liked, including making nuclear weapons, sending Islamic militants into Kashmir, and organizing the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban. In 2002 she regretted having signed the document authorizing funds for the funding Taliban forces for seizing Kandahar. Ms. Bhutto makes an excellent martyr. In her death she will doubtlessly play a more positive role than when alive.
Q: Al Qaeda was immediately blamed for Bhutto assassination. However, many people hated her: Musharraf, the Army, and the infamous ISI, which in 1990 removed Bhutto from power after she had replaced General Hameed Gul, the man who invented the Taliban. Do you believe that Al Qaeda was really responsible for killing Benazir Bhutto? Who is going to gain from Bhutto's death?
A: There are different possibilities and much confusion. But some facts are certain. There definitely were gunshots, and this was followed by a suicide blast. Now, I do not think that suicide bombers can be bought with any number of rupees. Only a religious fanatic lured by heavenly rewards would blow himself up. Therefore Al-Qaida, the Taliban, or other Islamic jihadist groups are strong possibilities. They always hated Bhutto, but even more after she announced in Washington that, if elected prime minister, she would fight them even more vigorously than Musharraf. Of course, rogue elements of Pakistan's intelligence agencies, who are also strong Islamists, and who lie deeply hidden within the establishment,could also have done it. They have a stock of suicide bombers available to them, as evidenced by the success they have had in organizing suicide attacks upon army commandos as well as their own colleagues.
So did Islamists of one or the other flavour do it? Maybe, but the waters have been muddied by the government. First, publicly available photographs and videos show a modern-looking gunman accompanying the suicide bomber. He fired three shots, heard by all present, at least one of which hit Bhutto. Some say that there was a second sharpshooter in a building too. On the other hand, the government initially insisted she died from concussion and not a bullet wound - an obvious lie immediately refuted by those in the same car as Bhutto. Second, in just an hour after the assassination, the police washed away all the bloody evidence with water hoses. So, it is quite possible that non-Islamists in the government have somehow used brainwashed suicide bombers, trained in mosques and madrassas, to do their dirty job. But, as in the JFK murder, the truth will never be known.
As for the gainers and losers: Islamist groups saw Bhutto as a tool of America that would be used against them, and a leader who could secularize Pakistan. Plus, she was a woman and popular. But Musharraf and his political party, the PML(Q), have also gained because a political rival has been eliminated. The losers are those Pakistanis who wish for a secular, modern Pakistan and not one that is run by mullahs. Although she never delivered on her promises, her followers never lost faith.
Q: There is a lot of concern about the future of Pakistan. How real is the threat of an Islamic takeover, in your opinion?
A: It has already been taken over! Twenty five years ago the Pakistani state began pushing Islam on to its people as a matter of policy. Prayers in government departments were deemed compulsory, punishments were meted out to those who did not fast in Ramadan, selection for academic posts required that the candidate demonstrate knowledge of Islamic teachings, and jihad was propagated through schoolbooks. Today government intervention is no longer needed because of a spontaneous groundswell of Islamic zeal. But now the state is realizing that it shot itself in the foot. The fanatical jihadists it created have turned against it. It is supreme irony that the Pakistan Army - whose men were recruited under the banner of jihad and which saw itself as the fighting arm of Islam - is now frequently targeted by suicide bombers who are fighting a jihad to bring even stricter Islam. It has lost a thousand or more men fighting Al-Qaida and the Taliban.
The pace of radicalization has quickened. There are almost daily suicide attacks. This phenomenon was almost unknown in Pakistan before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Now it is common in major cities as well as tribal areas. The targets have been the Pakistan army, police, incumbent and retired government leaders, and rival Islamic sects. But this is just the tip of the iceberg; we'll see much more in years ahead.
Q: Ideally, what do you want to see happen in the next few weeks?
A: I want Musharraf to go - resign or somehow be removed, preferably without bloodshed. I want the independent judiciary restored, a new neutral caretaker government installed for overseeing free and fair elections, and then elections that would decide upon the new parliament and prime minister. This will not immediately solve Pakistan's fundamental problems - army dominance, maldistribution of wealth, religious fanaticism - but it would get Pakistan on the track to democracy instead of the self-destruction it is racing towards.
Q: People in Washington are increasingly frustrated with Musharraf's counterterrorism efforts, however they think there are no alternatives to Musharraf. What do you think about this?
A: The Americans have tunnel vision. They want lackeys like Musharraf who do their bidding, although here too there is deception at work. They know, but choose to forget, that Pakistani military leaders, Musharraf included,are the makers of the jihadist monster. In 1999, after Musharraf launched the secret Kargil operation in Kashmir, the United Jihad Council celebrated him as a true fighter for Islam. After 911 such praises disappeared, but under his leadership the army still covertly supported jihadist groups and the Taliban in Kashmir and Afghanistan.
Musharraf is extremely unpopular now and the Americans will have to dump him at some point. It is hard to find a pro-Musharraf person anywhere in the country except in the top business circles and the top army leadership. Until recently he ran both the army and the government himself, with the connivance of a rubber-stamp Parliament put in place through rigged elections. When the courts were about to rule that he could not legally be president, Musharraf chose to suspend the constitution and impose emergency rule. He dismissed the Supreme Court and arrested the judges, replacing them with judges who obey his every command. He blocked all independent television channels, and punished the news media for disparaging him or the army. His police arrested thousands of lawyers and pro-democracy activists. He ordered that civilians be tried in closed military courts. This was necessary, he said, to save Pakistan from a rapidly growing Islamist insurgency. But he released 25 Islamic extremists on the day that the judges were arrested. In spite of all this, George W.
Bush called Musharraf "a democrat at heart".
The Americans have shot themselves in the foot by supporting the army consistently for decades. They have lost credibility and respect among Pakistanis. Everybody laughs when they hear that America wants democracy for Pakistan. In this situation, even if Musharraf goes and Gen. Kayani (the new army chief) takes over, the best that American can hope for is for the status quo. This is sad, because America is a great country with many virtues. If only they could get over their hangup of wanting to run the world! It's an impossible task anyway.
Q: In Pakistan what is the man on the street thinking?
A: Almost everyone holds the government responsible for the assassination. Tragically, suicide bombings are not condemned with any particular vigor.There is no strong reaction against the mullahs, madrassas, and jihadis. Perhaps people are afraid to criticize them because this might be seen as a criticism of Islam. Interestingly, in all the street demonstrations I have gone to after the Bhutto assassinations, there was no call for cracking down on extremists. Yesterday I met the lone taxidriver who thought the Islamists did it.
Q: What could be an effective way to fight Al Qaeda and the Taleban in Pakistan?
A: To fight and win this war, Pakistan will need to mobilize both its people and the state. The notion of a power-sharing agreement between the state and Taliban is a non-starter; the spectacular failures of earlier agreements should be a lesson. Instead the government should help create public consensus through open forum discussions, proceed faster on infrastructure development in the tribal areas, and make judicious use of military force - troops only, no air power. This should become every Pakistani's war, not just the army's, and it will have to be fought even if America packs up and goes away. But, as long as Musharraf is president,it will be impossible to get popular support for the war. If presented with a choice between Musharraf and the Taliban, the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis would want the latter - although I am sure they would regret it later.
Q: Let's talk about Pakistan's nukes. There a lot of concern about the possibility that nuclear weapons could end up into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists. Early in December the Washington Post revealed that a small group of U.S. military experts and intelligence analysts convened in Washington for exploring strategies to secure Pakistani nukes if the Pakistani regime falls apart. Their conclusions were very scaring, as,- there are no palatable ways to forcibly ensure the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. What do you think about this?
A: The government says there is absolutely no danger of loose nukes. Pakistan has been sending serving officers of the Strategic Plans Division, which is the agency responsible for handling nuclear weapons, to the United States for training in safety measures (PAL's locking devices,storing procedures, etc). But there's no way of telling if this will be effective. Extremists have already penetrated deep into the army and the intelligence agencies. We now see repeated evidence: for example, last month an unmarked bus carrying employees of the Inter Services Intelligence [Pakistan's secret intelligence], was collecting employees early in the morning. It was boarded by a suicide bomber who blew himself up killing 25. It was an inside job.
And now there are many other such examples, such as that of an army man killing 16 Special Services Group commandos in a suicide attack at Ghazi Barotha. A part of the establishment is clearly at war with another part. There are also scientists, as well as military people, who are radical Islamists. Many questions come to mind: can there be collusion between different field-level commanders, resulting in the hijacking of a nuclear weapon? Could outsider groups develop links with insiders? Given the absence of accurate records of fissile material production, can one be certain that small quantities of highly enriched uranium or weapons grade plutonoium have already not been diverted? I do not know the answers. Nobody does.
[Pervez Hoodbhoy is professor of nuclear and high-energy physics, and chairman of the department of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)