The Real Issue

By Amir Zia
Monday, April 29, 2013
The News

Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders should try to shun the ‘Islam under siege’ mentality, which is often twisted, distorted and used by extremist forces to their own benefit. As a Muslim-majority country, we must be confident and sure-footed that there is no threat to Islam or Islamic values in Pakistan

Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is generally known for his careful, restrained and well thought out public remarks and statements. He is not one of those who speak first and think later. His public statements are seen to reflect the collective will and position of the mighty military establishment. Therefore, it is understandable that his April 20 address at the passing-out parade of young officers at the Pakistan Military Academy in Kakul created the usual media hype and debate about its timing, essence of the message and intended audience.

Many right-wing analysts and commentators underlined and celebrated General Kayani’s words in which he emphasised the importance of the Islamic roots of Pakistan.

“Pakistan was created in the name of Islam and Islam can never be taken out of Pakistan”, said the army chief as quoted in the media. “However, Islam should always remain a unifying force”, he said vowing that the Pakistan Army would keep doing its best to achieve the dream of establishing a truly Islamic Republic of Pakistan as envisioned by Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah.

For ideologically liberal analysts, General Kayani’s words came across as yet another testimony of the right-wing tilt of the armed forces – especially at a time when Pakistan stands only a few weeks from the general elections scheduled for May 11. They read Kayani’s message from the old paradigm in which Pakistan’s military establishment sponsored and patronised select groups of non-state actors to further its goals on the Afghanistan and Kashmir fronts and weaken democratic forces within the country – especially during General Ziaul Haq’s era and all through the 1990s when some of the generals remained active players in determining the fate of various elected governments.

But between these two opposite reactions is the fact that today the Pakistan Army and paramilitary troops remain locked in a more than a decade-long conflict with extremists and terrorist groups in which around 3,700 security personnel have been martyred and at least 12,000 critically wounded. Add to this the civilian deaths and the figure would jump to a mammoth loss of 50,000 Pakistan lives. The enormity of the pain and suffering of Pakistan can never be conveyed and understood through the rounded figure of 50,000 killings in this religiously-motivated violence and terrorism. It is a colossal loss on both an individual and a collective level in a country where human life has become cheap and the writ of the state is being challenged daily by the Al-Qaeda and it inspired local terror groups.

For any military in the world, confronting this kind of internal challenge offers a nightmarish scenario because often insurgents try to create a narrative that aims to confuse the issue, blur the lines between right and wrong, and win sympathy and support among the masses and the security personnel. The terrorists and their masterminds try to achieve these objectives through well-orchestrated propaganda, half truths, lies and floating misconceptions as they continue with their campaign of hit-and-run attacks and bombings in an attempt to disrupt and weaken the state.

In today’s context, from the Al-Qaeda-inspired terror groups – including the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) – to the apparently non-violent, but outlawed Hizb-ut Tahrir, all are trying to undermine the fight against extremism by portraying it as an ‘American war’. Many mainstream religious and right-wing parties such as the Jamaat-e-Islami, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and various factions of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) also echo the propaganda of these militants.

If violent extremist groups like the TTP kill and behead soldiers in organised attacks and openly declare the Pakistan Army and other security institutions, especially the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), as its enemy number one, the mainstream right wing and religious groups by design or default support the extremist narrative by calling Pakistan’s efforts against terrorism a US war. These mainstream parties maintain a criminal silence over the atrocities committed by terrorists and the killing of Pakistani civilians and soldiers and instead press the government to surrender before these non-state actors and compromise Pakistan’s sovereignty. Such a demand implies that terrorists be allowed to use Pakistani territory for global terrorism.

Only novices in politics, statecraft and international diplomacy would suggest such a suicidal course and ask a government and state institutions to surrender before non-state actors who dont just want terrorist safe-havens, but also want to impose their controversial interpretation of Islam in the country.

The situation should be worrying for the army chief, who again on April 20 highlighted the internal security challenge, which remains far graver than any of the external threats faced by the country. By emphasising Quaid-e-Azam’s vision for Pakistan in his speech, Gen Kayani in fact rejected the theocratic and extremist interpretation of Islam done by militants and their cheerleaders in various mainstream religious and right-wing parties. His Kakul message was aimed both at his own institution as well as those distracters who stand opposed to Pakistan’s efforts against the internal threat posed by the Islamic extremists and their terror organisations and use Islam as a dividing rather than ‘unifying’ force.

However, Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders should try to shun the ‘Islam under siege’ mentality, which is often twisted, distorted and used by extremist forces to their own benefit. As a Muslim-majority country, we must be confident and sure-footed that there is no threat to Islam or Islamic values in Pakistan.

Who is attempting to separate Islam from Pakistan? What’s the basis of this fiction that ‘Islam is in danger’ in Pakistan as propagated by certain religious elements since the inception of the country? Even those forces which call for secularism in Pakistan do not intend to undercut its Muslim identity or Islamic values. Their demand for separating religion and politics must be seen in the historical context of the centuries-old divide between Muslim rationalists and Muslim fundamentalists. All the vast Muslim empires since the days of Umayyads in the second half of the 7th century were in their essence monarchies and far from the puritan Islamic system as espoused by the 20th and 21st century ideologues and leaders of fundamentalist forces. The centuries-old divisions among various Muslim sects remain a manifestation of this fact. But despite the absence of an ideal Islamic state in the political sense, Islam as a religion continued to flourish and expand.

Today, Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders need absolute clarity on what is the biggest and gravest threat to the country and its social, political and economic fabric. Of course, this threat comes from the extremists and all those intolerant political groups that want to push the country into anarchy and conflict, using the sacred name of Islam. These misguided ones need to be tackled firmly the way the armed forces did – successfully – in Swat and other regions. But there is a lot more to be done as the terrorists and extremists have fanned from the treacherous mountains of North Waziristan to the urban jungle of Karachi and have apparently been carrying out their activities with impunity.

The nation expects Pakistan’s armed forces to play the role of a vanguard in defeating these terrorists and their extremist mindset, which tries to confuse the ordinary Muslims of Pakistan in the name of Islam. Who else in Pakistan but the armed forces has the ability and capacity to defeat these terrorists? The civilian leaders should support this effort and take ideological ownership of this fight since it is now a question of Pakistan’s survival. The basic problem in today’s Pakistan remains religious extremism and terrorism – which needs to be resolved. All the other debates and issues are secondary.

Words Matter

By Amir Zia
Monday, April 22, 2013 
The News

This is an age of mediocrity where terms like liberal-fascists can be in vogue in the media and jihad and tsunami used for meanings totally their opposite. It is indeed Orwellian double speak where words are corrupting thoughts and thoughts corrupting words
Can one be a liberal and a fascist at the same time? Ask any political scientist or a student of politics and the answer you will probably hear will be a definitive no. Liberalism and fascism cannot be knotted together. They simply repel one another. Imagine inventing a phrase like ‘Marxist-capitalist’. Those who understand their meaning would simply brush it aside as pure nonsense. The same way a phrase like ‘democratic-dictator’ can never be taken seriously in any political discourse.
In Pakistan’s polarised but often farcical political chatter, a term like ‘liberal-fascist’ has gained currency, at least in the mainstream media in recent years. Many right-wing politicians, prominent political commentators, analysts and journalists are using it with impunity to denounce and ridicule their ideological rivals – those who stand for democracy, pluralism, secular values, moderation and modernity. These rivals also stand guilty of advocating liberty, freedom of speech, tolerance, peace and women’s rights. They also commit the cardinal sin of defending religious minorities and speaking for the rights of the politically and economically oppressed and marginalised people.

However, to put it mildly, bracketing these ‘liberals’ with ‘fascists’ under the catchphrase of ‘liberal-fascists’ remains widely off the mark and is an improper use of words which are entire concepts within themselves. At best this flawed phrase depicts the innocence of those who use it; at worst, their lack of understanding of basic political concepts and philosophies.

The ideological opponents of liberals should have come up with at least a correct catchphrase as a slur to show that their creative juices are flowing in the right direction. I don’t know who should take the credit of coining this erroneous phrase and using it for the first time in Pakistan, but I am sure that the father of modern fascism, Benito Mussolini, wouldn’t have appreciated it and sent his black-shirt goons to get the phrase corrected. The founder of classical liberal philosophy, John Locke, would have come up with a long explanation to clear the cobwebs in the minds of the anti-liberal element about various political philosophies and perhaps even helped them to come up with a correct mock-phrase against his own kind.

Going by its basic definition, fascism espouses totalitarian principles and represents the extreme right-wing nationalist movement that emerged in Italy under Mussolini. As a political philosophy it stands opposed to democracy and liberal values. Fascism also remains hostile to leftists of all shades and brands, who in today’s context hardly matter in Pakistan. Fascists are racists and see political violence and imperialism as justifiable methods to achieve the goal of establishing their national supremacy.

Fascism is a highly misused and abused word, often applied incorrectly in Pakistan’s context, though fascist tactics of organised violence and terror are increasingly practiced by fundamentalist and outlawed groups including the Al-Qaeda-inspired Taliban militants. To use it for liberals is as misleading and wrong as calling fascists liberals. Pakistani liberals never attempt to silence their rivals by resorting to suicide bombings and violence. They won’t attempt to deprive anyone of his or her freedom of speech. They do engage and challenge opponents on an intellectual plane – through writing and discussion or at the most by organising peaceful rallies and protests. One can accuse many of the liberals for being ‘their foreign donor’s voice’, or acting and taking political positions without taking into account the objective and ground realities, but using fascist tactics are not in their creed.

The attempted ridiculous fusion of liberalism and fascism is not the only case of the improper use of political terms and words in our mainstream political discourse. There are many other words that are being used out of context, distorting and corrupting the entire political, theological and philosophical discourse.

A prime example is the criminal abuse of the word ‘jihad’ or holy war, both by national and international media. This sacred principle of Islam, mentioned in the Holy Quran, has been equated by design or default with terrorism and senseless violence both here and abroad.

In the mainstream media, the outlawed terrorist groups are daily dubbed as ‘jihadi organisations’ and their members taunted for their alleged ‘jihadi mindset’. When authorities seize the training manuals or political propaganda material of these groups, it is often called ‘jihadi literature’ and their acts of violence described as jihadi activities. Equating jihad with terrorism remains not just factually incorrect, but in a way also seems to endorse the stance of such terrorist groups.

Any ordinary Pakistani Muslim can explain without the help of any top-, mid- or low-level cleric that Islam defines rules of conflict and war, which forbid the killing of innocent people and non-combatants even in enemy territory – let alone targeting Pakistanis in suicide bombing and other acts of terror. Islam even bars destruction of trees and crops, let alone taking lives of innocent men, women and children or destroying educational institutions as the Al-Qaeda-inspired Pakistani militants have been doing across the country. Islam calls for fairness, justice and moderation even in conflict rather than blind vengeance and barbaric acts.

The careless use of words like ‘jihad’, ‘jihadi’ or ‘mujahid’ (holy warrior) in the mainstream media is like double-edged sword, which on the one hand undermines and misrepresents Islam and its sacred tenants, and on the other by default legitimises terrorist groups and their activities. The terrorists use such terms to confuse ordinary Muslims and validate their misconceived struggle.

The mainstream political and religious parties, intellectuals, opinion makers, journalists and writers and media organisations must refrain from using the word jihad for acts of terror or dubbing terrorists as jihadis. The neutral terms of militants and militancy appear best suited for this purpose.

In a Muslim majority state like Pakistan, it is only the government that can announce jihad in terms of conflict and in which the regular army remains the backbone not the non-state actors or shady militant groups. On an individual level, a Muslim remains free to wage spiritual jihad to beat negative emotions, feelings and desires for self-improvement and character building.

On a lighter note, let’s talk a bit about the harbinger of a tsunami. Yes, our own cricket hero-turned-politician Imran Khan, who chose such a negative symbol to mark his political ambitions.

A tsunami only brings indiscriminate destruction. It is massive water waves caused by earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other underwater explosions. In its remotest sense of meaning, a tsunami – a word of Japanese origin – is never considered a positive force. But enter Imran Khan with a bang, corrupting and changing the meaning of words for his innocent and not-so-innocent followers. If no one else in the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, at least veteran columnist Shafaqat Mehmood should explain to his leader the importance of using words correctly. But we hear that captain Khan listens to no one. If it is true, then all my sympathies are with Mehmood Sahib.

There was a time when even in Pakistan electioneering was done on positive slogans – as Zulfikar Ali Bhutto did in the 1970s with his yet to be matched slogan of ‘roti, kapra aur makan’ (bread, cloth and shelter). But now, it is all about tsunamis or intangible slogans of new Pakistan, or bright Pakistan and, in some cases, just brash lies about past performance.
Indeed, this is an age of mediocrity where terms like liberal-fascists can be in vogue in the media and jihad and tsunami used for meanings totally their opposite. It is indeed Orwellian double speak where words are corrupting thoughts and thoughts corrupting words and distorting their meanings.

BOOK REVIEW: Saints & Sinners

Why Some Countries Fail?

By Amir Zia

The News on Sunday
April 21, 2013

The book takes the reader on a fast-paced and action-packed tour of conflict-ridden countries and is a treasure trove for scholars and students

Title: Saints and Sinners
Author: Ali Mahmood
Publisher: HarperCollins India
Pages: 448
Price: INR 599

Want to read an array of tales of mega corruption or the most horrible atrocities committed around the world in recent times — then ‘Saints & Sinners’ is the book for you. The book attempts to explain one of the biggest and oldest questions of the statecraft — “why some countries grow rich, and the others don’t?”

Ali Mahmood, a Dubai-based author, a leading Pakistani businessman, who dabbled in politics as a senator of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s PPP, takes the reader on a fast-paced and action-packed tour of conflict-ridden countries of Africa, Middle East, South Asia, Far East and Eastern Europe in his search for an answer to the question why some countries fail.
In most countries, the conflicts were home-grown and stemmed from their ruling elite’s inability to resolve their internal contradictions. At others, the global powers, including the United States, played a leading role in igniting and intensifying such conflicts, but in rare instances also attempted to resolve them.
Mahmood got a firsthand glimpse of oppressive state machinery during the days of Zia-ul Haq, when he was sentenced to 14-year jail term. This forced him into an exile for the same number of years in the calm water of the United Kingdom, where he managed to get political asylum.
His interest in politics and political questions did not wane with time. And the fruit of his musings and research is this highly readable work in which he builds the premise that “conflict and corruption” remain the “most deadly traps” for the developing countries. Mahmood’s effort reminds one of a momentous work done by two leading US-based academics, Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson under the title — Why Nations Fail. The two authors too tried to find answer to the mother of all questions that why there remain such huge differences in incomes and standards of living that separate the rich countries of the world, such as the United States, Great Britain and Germany, from the poor such as those in sub-Saharan Africa, Central America and South Asia. While Mahmood’s work appears more of a journalistic reportage, the US authors’ book is more academic, analytical and scientifically researched.
Here, a comparative study of the two books is not the aim, but the similarity of question, raised by these works, is indeed significant to underline.
Mahmood raises thought-provoking questions on whether democracy helps or hinders development and admits that, “some of the most successful states across the world have not been democratic.”
Along with corruption and conflict, Mahmood sees that relations with the world’s sole superpower — the United States — also remain vital in deciding fortunes of a state in our times. “The US can make you or break you, not just by war but also because of its overwhelming economic power,” the author argues in his preface.
The first section of the book deals with conflict — taking readers into the horrors of civil war, mass slaughters, rape, devastation and plunder in places like Angola, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, Eretria, Israel and Palestine and Iraq and Iran. The stories of conflicts in Yugoslavia and Russia are no less chilling.
The second section of the book focuses on corruption and describes how it “effects and obstructs development.” In the words of the author, “economic activity is slowed down, efficiency falls, the rule of law is weakened as the courts fails to deliver justice, while the police prey on the populace.”
The author has managed to highlight both these challenges in a well-argued manner, giving some solid background and useful information from his exhaustive research from various sources. Although one can draw many lessons and parallels from this book regarding the multiple challenges faced by Pakistan, the book is not Pakistan-focused. It has a broad canvas and tries to understand factors that why some nations plunge into chaos, anarchy, civil wars and economic meltdowns, while others prosper. According to the author, only Israel emerges as a state, which benefited even from the conflict — but then it has the unwavering support of the United States, which plays an important part in strengthening and stabilising this small country locked in a hostile neighbourhood.
The book is a treasure trove for scholars and general readers who want to know about the major conflicts of recent times, their background, the factors driving them and even the lead personalities who remained responsible for them. Each conflict is packaged in small, highly readable doses of few pages, giving their gist. One meets larger than life characters — or should we say villains — responsible for the plight and killings of tens of thousands of people. It is a whirlwind, but highly informative tour of Egypt and Algeria where hardened Islamists are seen locked with corrupt and insensitive secular establishments.
In Liberia and Sierra Leone one meets the “lords of war” who dehumanised the entire populations, committing atrocities, which can appear too gruesome for the faint heart. In Angola, if there is a politics of oil versus diamonds, the reader would also find the tales of horror from the long war of Ethiopia and Eritrea. The Yugoslav war — described as Europe’s own horror story — happened not too long ago to fade from our collective memory. And of course, Pakistan and India also feature as the main players of the nuclear conflict zone of South Asia.
Pakistan own tales of corruption and sleaze would appear small time affairs when one reads the magnitude of corruption in capitalist Russia and the exploitation of Iraq both by Saddam Husein and its successors — the mighty US corporate interests.
The other section of the book focuses on issues of democracy – including Islamic democracy, superpowers’ role and some success stories including from Singapore, China, Dubai, Israel and Malaysia.
Pakistan again features in the second last chapter under the title — “failed or failing.”

The conclusion focuses on the quality of leaders, who in the words of author make the ultimate difference. One can argue against this rather simplistic premise, but Mahmood’s Saints and Sinners remains a story of greed, corruption and conflict which is well told.

How Peace Eludes Karachi

By Amir Zia
April 15, 2013
The News

When it comes to killings, Karachi surpasses even the Al-Qaeda and Taliban-infested Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the Fata...

The paramilitary rangers and the police have apparently geared up action against criminals and terrorists in Karachi in the run-up to the May 11 general elections, but the streets of this restive port city continue to remain dangerous and lawless as ever.

These days, there are more killings, crimes and violence in this megalopolis of roughly more than 18 million people than any other part of Pakistan. Yes, when it comes to killings, Karachi surpasses even the Al-Qaeda and Taliban-infested Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the Federally Administrated Tribal Areas (Fata), which border war-torn Afghanistan. In March, terrorism-related incidents claimed around 100 lives here. This is a higher death toll than the combined tally of 91 such killings in all of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Fata for the same month, according to Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS), an Islamabad-based NGO.

Local media reports say that in the first 12 days of April, at least 50 people, including soldiers of the paramilitary rangers, police officials and activists belonging to various political parties, have been killed in various incidents of terrorism and religious, sectarian, ethnic and politically-motivated violence. This figure, which also includes several blind murders, stands higher than any other city, region or entire province of Pakistan during the same period.

No wonder the Supreme Court of Pakistan has been pressing the authorities, including the police and paramilitary rangers, to establish the writ of the state and rule of law in each and every neighbourhood of Karachi. This means a decisive action against criminals and terrorists without any discrimination and abolishment of all the so-called ‘no-go’ areas in the city. That’s what a vast majority of residents of Karachi also want. From a multibillionaire business tycoon to the man on the street – they all crave for peace in their city. If one asks even the much-criticised political parties and other stakeholders, including the security establishment, they too would go the extra-mile to express their commitment to this cause.

But despite this wide consensus, peace continues to elude Karachi. In fact, the five-year undiluted democratic rule will be remembered in Karachi because of the steep increase in targeted killings and kidnappings, widespread extortion, a sharp spike in bank robberies and street crime coupled with gang wars and political, ethnic and religious violence and terrorism. The former military-led government indeed did a better job in keeping a tab on lawlessness and crime in the country’s financial hub compared with the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)-led coalition government which included the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and the Awami National Party (ANP).

Here the important question is: why does this apparent broad-based consensus among key players fail to translate into meaningful action or give positive results? There are multiple factors for this mega failure in this mega city.

To start with is the shady role of the political, nationalist and religious parties, which are fighting a ruthless turf war to win, expand or maintain their hold on various neighbourhoods of Karachi. The aim is not just elections, but the vast financial opportunities that Karachi’s bustling markets, commercial enterprises and businesses and industries provide in the form of naked extortion or ‘voluntary donations’. Then, there is a mega-buck racket of encroachment that is patronised by secular, nationalist, religious and ethnic political forces alike. All these groups nurture, patronise and protect criminals in their ranks, which has criminalised our politics to the core – a la Bollywood.

Even the three former partners in the ruling coalition – the PPP, the MQM and the ANP – remained locked in this turf war with one another during the most part of their rule in which hundreds of people were killed. According to security officials, all major criminal gangs operating in Karachi enjoy the blessings of various political and religious parties. Their hold is strong, especially in slums, and low-income and poor localities.

Then we have the banned – but very much active – sectarian organisations, which continue to target rivals and expand their network. Many seminaries and mosques in the city serve as their hideouts and bases – with or without the knowledge of their administrations. The terror cells of these sectarian groups are also connected with pan-Islamic militant groups, including Al-Qaeda, which often collaborate with one another for major operations in Karachi and other parts of the country.

The Taliban, who once used Karachi just for rest and recreation, are also emerging as players in many Pakhtun-dominated localities of the city. They have not just brought their conflict with the ANP to Karachi, but feel strong enough to take on the MQM. While the ANP has already taken a heavy beating both physically and politically in Karachi, the MQM too appears wary of the Taliban threat that comes in the form of suicide bombings and targeted killings by hardened militants which this party is hardly in a position to deal with. The Taliban also use Karachi to raise funds – mainly through bank robberies, extortion rackets and kidnappings.

In between these major players are various small- and medium-sized political-cum-criminal mafias, which all fight and compete for a slice of Karachi’s financial cake.

The state institutions responsible to combat crime and terrorism stand compromised and are often seen as part of the problem rather than the solution.

The police department is highly politicised and corrupt and many of its senior, mid-level and junior officials have links with various gangs and politicians. The ability of police to fight terror and crime gets further compromised because of the expediency of political bosses, who protect gangs for political mileage and clout.

The paramilitary rangers – the only force that has raided the offices of various political parties – has mere policing powers to search and arrest, but not to interrogate and investigate, which limits their effectiveness. When rangers arrest suspects, the country’s flawed legal and prosecution system allows most of the known and hardened criminals and terrorists to be released on bail within a span of four to six weeks.

According to Director General Sindh Rangers Major General Rizwan Akhter, the political-cum-criminal mafias have adapted themselves to the operations conducted by his force. “People get arrested, but once handed over to the police, their patrons managed to get them out on bail and even acquitted,” he says.

The acquittal rate of criminals and terrorists, according to senior lawyers and officials of law-enforcement agencies, remains between 85 and 99 percent. The reason: absence of any protection plan for witnesses and a highly flawed investigation system that lacks modern forensic and laboratory facilities.

Even those criminals who are convicted by superior courts and handed down death sentences remain safe in jail because of the moratorium on executions slapped by the PPP-led government during its five-year rule in which only one hanging has taken place. Today, nearly 8,000 death-row convicts are sitting safe in prisons, which security personnel say encourages crime, fuels private vendetta and sometimes results in street justice. Many politically-connected criminals and terrorists who end up in jail manage to run their operations from there under the very nose of the police.

It appears to be a ‘lose-lose situation’, given the lack of political will, direction and commitment to establish rule of law in Karachi. Election 2013 is likely to bring same political forces back in to power in Sindh which failed to deliver peace and beat crime and lawlessness during their last five-year rule.

The caretaker government, the police and the paramilitary rangers have a brief window available in the pre-election days to go aggressively after terrorists, killers and extortionists not just to create conducive environment for the May 11 elections but also for sustainable peace in the city.

You talk to top officials of the police and paramilitary rangers and they promise to clean up the mess in a month’s time if political interference stops and they are given a free hand. But barring cosmetic promises and half-hearted fire-fighting measures in the pre-elections days, this desire of the law enforcers is unlikely to be fulfilled. The hard days for this luckless city are far from over.

Tsunami or Passing Storm?

By Amir Zia 
April, 2013
Monthly Newsline

Will Imran Khan’s “tsunami,” comprising enthusiastic youngsters and the so-called ‘electables’ poached from other parties, be able to sweep aside the PML-N in its powerbase of the central Punjab? ...Will the World Cup-winning captain be able to get any wickets on the turf of urban and rural Sindh where the MQM and the PPP’s political scorecards have remained enviable?

A harbinger of change or a politically blinkered man with abberated delusions of grandeur, Imran Khan is usually defined in these two extremes. His stated ideological stance and anti-US rhetoric bracket him with the country’s orthodox and conservative ideological forces like the Jamaat-e-Islami, but the urban fan club of this former cricket hero includes many young liberal men and women, who unequivocally abhor the politicisation of Islam and the clerics’ narrow interpretation of their religion. So while his rivals taunt the ‘Taliban Khan’ for opposing the military operation against al-Qaeda-inspired local militants and keeping an evasive stand on the twin challenges of extremism and terrorism, his loyalists believe that he alone has the recipe to engender peace in the country.

Imran Khan certainly makes sure that in every public meeting and rally he devotes considerable time to showcasing himself as a man of faith and a “good, practicing Muslim.” He even underscored the Islamic dimension of his politics and personality and expressed fascination with the tribal code of honour, tradition and values in his book Pakistan; A Personal History. Some of his associates, meanwhile, are high-flying urbanites and staunch secularists who want to portray their leader as a liberal and explain his overt religiosity as no more than a tactical necessity.

The truth is, Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) tilt toward the right-wing remains a well thought-out and planned strategy rather than a matter of mere tactics, as described by many of his liberal supporters. It is the center-right and religious vote bank which he and his party are trying to woo, that pits them more against the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) than the secular Pakistan People’s Party (PPP).
   
No wonder then, when it comes to ideological positioning of the PTI on key issues – ranging from the opposition to the US drone attacks on local and foreign militants operating on Pakistani territory, to that of supporting controversial Islamic radical and terror convict, Aafia Siddiqui as a heroine – Imran Khan tends to be on the same wave-length as the Jamaat-e-Islami and its like. He seldom sees eye-to-eye with those forces which openly denounce terrorism and extremism in all its forms and who want non-state actors to stop using Pakistani territory to plan and launch strikes against any other country.

With this right-wing worldview and narrative, the 2013 general elections will be make-or-break for the PTI, which seeks to escape the political wilderness and emerge as an alternate force against the two mainstream parties – the PML-N and the PPP. 

But will Khan’s “tsunami,” comprising enthusiastic youngsters and the so-called ‘electable’ candidates poached from other parties, be able to sweep aside the PML-N in its powerbase of the central Punjab? Will it be able to drown the PPP’s prospects in southern Punjab with the help of a couple of dissident leaders from the two main parties, including Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Makhdoom Javed Hashmi? Will the World Cup-winning captain be able to get any wickets on the turf of urban and rural Sindh where the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and the PPP’s political scorecards have remained enviable? Khan has only a few party men to pit against the formidable PPP and MQM candidates in Sindh, and it is unlikely that they will emerge victorious in the hurly-burly of elections. On Khyber Pakhtoonkhawa’s bumpy wicket, will Khan’s team be able to score against the googlies of Maulana Fazal-ur Rahman and his Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) and other tenacious opponents like the Awami National Party (ANP)? And how will Khan’s team fare in the restive Balochistan province where the nationalists are back in the ring of electoral politics and are in no mood to repeat the 2008 boycott of elections. 

All that notwithstanding, and whatever the prophets of doom and gloom may say, for his part Imran Khan is confident.  He believes his moment has finally come. Certainly, going by the crowds at the PTI’s public meetings in all the major cities, he   could be forgiven for believing that he is actually a major contender for power.  The overall public disenchantment with the current political order, the endless stories of mega corruption, economic mismanagement and poor governance have certainly boost Imran Khan’s political fortunes, but the past two outings of his party in the 1997 and 2002 elections do not engender too much hope in this regard. In both those elections, the PTI’s performance remained dismal; it managed to secure only 1.7 percent and 0.8 percent of the popular votes respectively.

In the 2002 elections, Imran Khan’s performance at the hustings was seen as ever more pathetic because he barely managed to win his lone seat in the National Assembly, even though former military ruler Pervez Musharraf had kept the central leadership of the PPP and PML-N out of the electoral arena. 

But this time round, the PTI seems convinced it will do a lot better. At the ripe age of 60, Imran Khan still remains an idol for the youth and a hero for many of his women fans. And many of them, particularly in the urban areas, are least bothered about ideological debates and his right-wing stance. For many he remains an untainted icon who could make a difference in politics just because he is honest, upright and bold. Even his rivals and harshest critics acknowledge his achievements as a sportsman and philanthropist and agree that he is one of the few Mr. Cleans of Pakistan’s corruption-ridden power politics.

Unfortunately, the crowds at the PTI rallies and Imran Khan’s image alone are not enough to guarantee him a ticket to the corridors of power. There are many other elements, which come into play in Pakistan’s electoral politics that overwhelmingly remains constituency-centred and revolves around local narrow factors such as the biradari or caste system, the vice-like hold of the mighty feudal lords and tribal chiefs and ethnic and sectarian affiliations.

So far, in Pakistan’s electoral history. only Zulfikar Ali Bhutto managed to steamroll his constituency-centric politics in the 1970 elections. But after that the parochial nature of electoral politics bounced back with a vengeance – thanks to careful nurturing and patronising by the former military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq during the 1980s.

In any case, constituency-centric politics tend to work more in major urban centres rather than in rural or semi-urban regions where factors including family ties, caste, tribe and ethnic and sectarian affiliations still play a vital role. This is why all the political parties remain so desperate to get into their fold “electable candidates,” most of who belong to powerful feudal or tribal families. Despite jumping from one party to another and a frequent change of loyalties, many such candidates manage to sail to Parliament following each election, as their followers vote for them regardless of their political or ideological position.

Will Imran Khan’s PTI, with its right-wing tilt, be able to repeat the feat of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s PPP, which shot to popularity on the back of secular and left-wing slogans? The harsh reality is that Imran Khan still comes short in relation to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, not only in terms of vision, political acumen, charisma and exposure to both national and international politics, but also in communication and public oratory.  Bhutto also had a more dynamic team compared with the political floaters and pygmies in Khan’s arsenal.

So even in this day and age of mediocrity, when brilliant politicians have become rare species, Imran Khan’s simplistic worldview and the USP (unique selling point) which revolves more around the mantra of ‘I’ and bombastic self-glorification than on real issue and how to resolve them in realistic ways, are not likely to make him a shoo-in to power. 

While some of Imran Khan’s close associates predict either a winning wave in favour of their party or at the least a minimum of 15 to 20 National Assembly seats, many independent analysts have been less generous in awarding his party seats.Of course both these claims are based on hypotheses rather than on scientific analyses or polls. 

One factor that could work in Imran Khan’s favour is the youth bulge, which means that around 40 percent of voters will be in the age bracket of 18 to 30 years and many would be voting for the first time in their life. If Imran Khan manages to cash in on his popularity among youngsters, at least in the urban centres he could give PML-N a run for its money in many of the constituencies of central Punjab. The PTI also has footprints in parts of Khyber-Pakhtoonkhawa, but the real question remains: Will Imran Khan’s fans be able to make an impact when it comes to constituency-centric polling? There are no easy answers for the untested and inexperienced PTI, which despite all the hype and aura of popular appeal could return empty-handed given the nature of the electoral system which appears locked in favour of the existing major parties. The PTI has to adapt and play according to the template.      

That aside, one thing is for sure: the PML-N will remain wary of Imran Khan, who is competing for seats in its power-base. If Khan’s team manages to play to its optimum on D-Day, the PTI can prove a major spoiler for the PML-N, especially on those seats which are closely contested. Meanwhile, the division in the right-wing vote-bank can benefit the PPP and its allies, provided they manage to mobilise their traditional voters.  However, given the poor five year performance with the PPP at the helm, voters may not deliver the dividends sought by the party.

Whether Imran Khan’s tsunami proves a mere storm in a teacup, whether he emerges as a victor or a mere spoiler on May 11, he is at least forcing the traditional players to raise the bar of their performance in this flawed and dysfunctional democratic system.  He is also to be credited for making the contest a little more colourful and interesting by his band, baja, dance rallies laced with a generous dose of religion and a brazen display of self-righteousness.

All eyes are now set on May 11.  Win or lose what, one wonders, will Imran Khan and his PTI followers do after the people have given their verdict.

Stifling Jinnah’s Pakistan

By Amir Zia
The News
Sunday, April 7, 2013

The mainstream parties must harness Pakistan’s collective will, which remains moderate and liberal. They must promise to repeal not just Article 62, but all the General Zia-injected distortions in the constitution. This is vital to reclaim Jinnah’s moderate and progressive Pakistan and defeat those forces that stand against its spirit and founding principles

We should be thankful to the returning officer who disqualified former lawmaker and one of the country’s leading columnists Mr Ayaz Amir from the 2013 elections for his alleged ‘thought-crime’ of opposing the ideology of Pakistan and Islam in his articles. Had the nomination papers of Mr Amir not been rejected, the issue of the General Zia-ul Haq-inspired controversial scrutiny process would have remained just a matter of amusement and another process to ridicule and vilify politicians.

But with Mr Amir’s disqualification, which has been followed by former president Pervez Musharraf’s nomination papers for Kasur being rejected for the 2007 crackdown on militants holed up in the Lal Mosque of Islamabad and a host of other alleged crimes, the gravity of this controversial and flawed scrutiny process now stands fully exposed.

In fact, many of the founding fathers of Pakistan, including Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah, would have failed the Election Commission’s trial aimed at bringing self-styled ‘pious’ and ‘good’ Muslims and defenders of the ‘ideology of Pakistan’ into parliament under the controversial Article 62 of the constitution.

Just imagine Quaid-e-Azam standing in front of a returning officer and being asked to recite Azan-e-Fajar, kalma or funeral prayers to prove credentials of being a good, practicing Muslim. Our Quaid would have certainly refused to participate in this absurd display of religiosity.

Even Sir Allama Mohammed Iqbal would have been on a sticky wicket if requested to explain the ideology of Pakistan in this day and age. The Poet of the East would have probably inquired which ideological interpretation he needed to give. The one defined in the Zia-era developed curriculum or coined post-Independence by those clerics and their predecessors who opposed Pakistan’s creation and declared its founding leaders infidels? Iqbal would have certainly stood loyal to the Quaid’s vision, which has no place for religious bigotry and intolerance or theocracy. He would have preferred ‘disqualification’ rather than yielding to the orthodoxy he battled against all his life.

Many other front-line independence movement leaders, who in their individual capacities served South Asian Muslims and Pakistan more than all the trouble-making politico-clerics combined, would have also failed to qualify for the 2013 elections if scrutinised under sections (d) and (e) of Article 62, which say that the candidate should be “of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic injunctions” and “has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins.”

Section (f) of this Gen Zia-injected article is no less baffling. It sets the condition that a candidate must be “sagacious, righteous and non-profligate, honest and ameen.”

Now can any authority objectively determine who is wise and righteous? Can one explain what is meant by a good character and ensure that others also agree to this definition? Doesn’t Islamic theology itself tell us that one act of virtue washes away all sins, while an iota of conceit and arrogance about self-assumed piousness in one’s heart can offset lifelong labour of worship? Any sensible state and its institutions distinguish between sin and crime.

Holding people accountable and barring them from running in elections for evading taxes, stealing public money, submitting fake degrees, defaulting bank loan payments is understandable and commendable. But for sins – which usually tempt and stun – one remains answerable only to the Almighty. It is His domain to punish us on this count and not the job of some returning officer or a professional cleric.

After all, who can claim that he or she has not sinned? Can the honourable chief justice, the Election Commission chief, the returning officers, the members of the caretaker setup members, the cleric on the pulpit, the anchor in front of the camera or any self-appointed moral watchdog of the society claim that they remain free of sin? Can they cross their hearts and vouch that they are of good character? Only extreme vanity will make one do that. Indeed, these are vague terms and exposed to subjective understanding and interpretation. The entire process is akin to pre-poll rigging. This so-called scrutiny is setting the game in favour of a certain kind of parochial mindset and forces by keeping alternative voices out of the race.

The Biblical question – let he who is without sin cast the first stone – seems to aim at today’s Pakistan where hypocrisy reigns supreme. Ironically, here every second person carries stones and wants to be the first one to throw them.

Pakistan’s founding fathers and many distinguished Pakistanis who came later would have the moral courage to confess with humility that they stand on the wrong side of scrutiny in this mad house, where religious bigots in the Election Commission and their cheerleaders are trying to thrust Zia’s dark legacy in the country.

The question-answer session conducted by returning officers to gauge a candidate’s character, piousness and understanding of the religion is nothing short of a farce. It is not only making Pakistan a laughing stock in the world, but further polarising an already divided society as well as strengthening religious intolerance. Religion, indeed, is a matter between an individual and God. The state and the society have no business in it.

Section (g) of Article 62 drifts further into the murky waters of intangibles by setting the criterion that the candidate “has not, after the establishment of Pakistan, worked against the integrity of the country or opposed the ideology of Pakistan.”

Ideology of Pakistan! Can one take the trouble of describing it? It is perhaps the most misused and abused term in our land of the pure.

Quaid-e-Azam and his team led the Pakistan Movement for the economic and political rights of Muslims – and that too for the Muslim-majority provinces. Had Congress leaders agreed to give constitutional guarantees to ensure these rights, history would have taken a different course. There are ample firsthand accounts and research available on this subject now.

Quaid-e-Azam had a Muslim majority state in mind not a theocratic Islamic one. This desire is articulated in his speech to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on Aug 11, 1947: “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the state... We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state...”

And whenever, Pakistanis got the opportunity to choose, they overwhelmingly voted for liberal and secular parties, underlining the ethos of Quaid-e-Azam’s Pakistan. The Taliban, their ideological forefathers and those who fought the so-called holy wars on dollars and stringers provided by the CIA were always booted out by voters.

But it also remains an unfortunate fact that today none of the major political parties, including the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), seem to be fighting for Jinnah’s Pakistan. They remain hostage to political expediency and appear afraid of the organised but small bands of militants and religious zealots, who try to impose their narrow world view on the majority.

But Pakistan is too big and too dynamic a nation to be swept away by these forces of obscurantism. The mainstream parties must harness Pakistan’s collective will, which remains moderate and liberal. They must promise to repeal not just Article 62, but all the General Zia-injected distortions in the constitution. This is vital to reclaim Jinnah’s moderate and progressive Pakistan and defeat those forces that stand against its spirit and founding principles.

Tailpiece: The Muttihada Qaumi Movement (MQM) leader Altaf Hussain has emerged as the first major politician to raise a voice against the Election Commission’s controversial scrutiny process, challenging the misuse of the term Pakistan ideology.

The other major parties must also play their role and unite on minimum points to get rid of distortions introduced in our constitution and society by General Zia. The masses are ready for this change, but is there any political will to do this? The 2013 elections might probably decide. If not, the struggle to realise Jinnah’s Pakistan will go on.