MQM’s Dilemma

By Amir Zia

Monday, May 27, 2013

The News

The best course for the MQM would be to act as a democratic and responsible opposition, lobbying both at the centre and the provincial levels on the key issues of improving law and order in Karachi, giving it a mass transit system and reviving the local bodies

The Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) has been undergoing a massive organisational shake-up these days as its founder and supreme leader Altaf Hussain declared a crusade against crime and corruption within the party ranks. Many office-bearers at different tiers of the party have been suspended, expelled or sidelined to make room for those waiting in the wing.

In a much delayed but desperately needed step, Hussain officially and openly forbade senior party officials and workers from collecting donations, indulging in the land encroachment racket and advancing business and commercial interests by exploiting the MQM’s name and clout.

According to the grapevine, some once middle-class MQM stalwarts – who are now multi-millionaires in dollar and pound sterling terms – proved as corrupt and greedy, if not more, as politicians hailing from feudal, tribal or business backgrounds. They built huge business empires starting from the congested North Nazimabad roads to Dubai and stretching up to the United States.

Altaf Hussain, many of his die-hard companions and – above all – his ardent followers have every reason to feel angry and betrayed at the way a party representing the lower and middle classes has been exploited to fulfil personal agendas and greed.

The process of accountability, self-evaluation and self-criticism within the MQM started soon after the May 11 elections in which this urban-based party managed to retain its share of the national and provincial assembly seats in Karachi and Hyderabad, but witnessed a four percent drop in its overall share of popular votes.

Although the margin of victory for MQM candidates remained large in most of its traditional constituencies, the number of votes polled in favour of the once discounted Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) should give cause for concern to the MQM think tank. The PTI candidates emerged at the number two position in most MQM-dominated areas with a sizeable number of votes. The PTI also bagged one national and two provincial assembly seats in Karachi, brushing aside the traditional anti-MQM forces – the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Awami National Party (ANP) – which once competed and often won from there.

Many upper-middle and middle-class Karachiites, who had never voted before, came out in droves to vote for the PTI. Many women and youngsters in the lower middle-class neighbourhoods – the MQM’s support-base – also voted for the ‘bat’, underlining the yearning for change even through the untried and untested PTI.

Apart from the cult appeal of Imran Khan, the PTI also managed to attract the voters of those parties that had boycotted the elections, alleging rigging and irregularities during polling in Karachi. This negative voting also boosted the PTI’s fortunes.

The voting pattern shows a surge in the number of votes polled against the traditional political forces, including the MQM, underlining a slight shift in Karachi’s political culture and emergence of new fault-lines. The answer to this noticeable shift in voting lies in the five year misrule of the PPP-led government of which the MQM remained a partner almost till the end. Yes, unlike its former allies, the MQM successfully defended its turf, but this time with a slightly slimmer victory margin and a huge psychological blow as many educated and professional Urdu-speaking families voted against it.

Why do an increasing number of Karachiites – especially the apolitical educated middle- and upper-middle class – feel so frustrated with the old political order, including the MQM? The reason is the failure of these mainstream forces to address any of the issues that affect, and hurt, the lives of the common man.

The list of some of the mega-failures of the PPP-MQM rule starts from the spike in political and religiously-motivated violence in Karachi in which nearly 7,000 people lost their lives. The irony was that militants belonging to the three ruling coalition partners – the PPP, MQM and ANP – were locked in bloody turf wars in the city. Their members were killing, kidnapping and torturing each other to death as the top leaders, by design or default, failed to translate their vision of unity to their rank-and-file.

This period also witnessed an unprecedented rise in street crime and extortion. Traders, business-owners and industrialists staged extraordinary shutter-down protests against the extortion mafia led by the PPP-backed Amn Committee of Lyari, which proved more brutal and ruthless compared to the old boys on the scene. As street crime, extortions, killings and lawlessness increased, the common man began to feel more helpless and defenceless on the streets of Karachi.

The MQM’s frequent protests and discussions with its senior coalition partner failed to change the situation on the ground. The nexus between crime and politics remained as strong as ever as all the political and religious parties contributed to the mess according to their size and power.

More guns, gunmen and guards remained on the roads and people had nowhere to turn to. If, on the one hand, criminals-cum-political gangsters continued to harass the people, on the other motorcades and armed guards of elected representatives, bigwigs, the rich and the powerful terrorised them through their sirens and automatic rifles.

There were no visible attempts to serve the people and improve their lives in the partnership of the rural and urban forces of Sindh. The PPP took the MQM for a long ride on the issue of local bodies which are vital to run and manage big cities like Karachi. By the time the diluted local body bill was approved by the Sindh Assembly, the time was up for this government. And the PPP, using its majority, proved quick to scrap even that in the last days of its term once the MQM decided to partially part ways with the government, but leaving its nominated governor firmly in the saddle.

The one other mega issue of Karachi – the mass transit system – also remained untouched by the former ruling coalition. There has been a steady deterioration in whatever existed in Karachi in the name of public transport. If until a few years ago people dangled at the footboards of rickety old buses and vans, now they have to hang for their lives at their windows, rear-bumpers and rooftops. And we hear that in our region, other cities of similar or even smaller size including Mumbai, New Delhi and our own Lahore already have or are in the process of installing mass transit systems.

The list of the former ruling coalition’s failures and the way it disappointed the masses can be stretched a lot more – from mismanaging health care and education to the lack of provision of even basic civic amenities. All praise to the MQM’s organisational structure, which pulled off these elections despite the dismal performance of the past government.

Moving forward, the MQM will have difficult choices to make – not just in terms of cleaning its stables and reorganising the party, but also in the matter of rejoining or not another PPP-led coalition at the provincial level. There would most certainly be pressure from within the MQM to be part of the PPP-led coalition. But if the past is any guide, this unity of diversity hardly stands a chance to deliver anything in the larger public interest.

This time around, the MQM stands on a much weaker wicket with few bargaining options in the future coalition setup. At the centre, Nawaz Sharif has comfortable numbers. He doesn’t need to run after the MQM to get himself or his nominee elected as prime minister or president. In Sindh too the PPP can easily run the show minus the MQM.

In this situation the best course for the MQM would be to act as a democratic and responsible opposition, lobbying both at the centre and the provincial levels on the key issues of improving law and order in Karachi, giving it a mass transit system and reviving the local bodies. The party should also fight and purge criminals, killers and the corrupt from its ranks to emerge as a pro-people and clean political force in the city. Is this a tall order for the MQM? Going by its record it seems so. Let’s hope that sceptics are proved wrong.

Great Expectations

By Amir Zia
The News
May 20, 2013

Pakistan needs a healing touch. Any actions seen as vindictive or aimed at settling old scores in the name of accountability will not just prevent the new government from focusing on the core issues, but could also drag other institutions and political forces into an unnecessary political fray

A sense of deja vu grips Pakistan's popular narrative following former premier Nawaz Sharif’s convincing electoral victory. Businesspeople and industrialists are jubilant that one from their own ranks is back in the saddle of power. They now hope for an efficient handling of the country’s economy, which took a beating and remained stuck in the low-growth and high-inflation cycle during the five-year misrule of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and its allies. In a tangible indication of the market sentiment, investors celebrated Sharif’s return by pushing the Karachi Stock Exchange 100-share index past the 20,000-point barrier.
The mood on the street, by and large, is also positive. A more mature, experienced and ‘astute’ Sharif is expected to provide better governance than his predecessors. There are hopes of lesser corruption and nepotism. The common man is desperate to believe that under Sharif and his Pakistan Muslim League there won’t be any loot and plunder of national resources. People want to cling to the hope that political position and power won’t be exploited to advance commercial and business interests, multiply the number of factories or acquire bank loans with little intentions of repayment. They want their new government to resolve the energy crisis, defeat militancy and terrorism and – yes – help create more jobs by triggering economic growth and investment.
Many of the political pundits, predicting a hung parliament, are fast changing the entire ambit of their analysis. They now appear euphoric over the prospects of a strong and stable government, which can ensure prudent policies and decision-making and address the pressing issues faced by the country on a war footing.
But haven’t we been through this similar state of déjà vu, excitement, and euphoria many times before? Whenever a new government takes charge – whether by ballot or military coup – we always start our journey with great expectations.
Remember the early months of 2008, when the PPP-led government assumed power with Asif Ali Zardari in command. Even then there was a mood of reconciliation and promises to learn from past mistakes. Zardari, with his charming smile, was wooing all the political forces – from Sharif to the Muttahida Qaumi Movement’s (MQM) Altaf Hussain. What happened after that is still fresh in our memory.
Similar joy and celebrations were witnessed when the army staged the bloodless coup on October 12, 1999 in response to Sharif’s attempt to oust its chief Pervez Musharraf and trying to prevent his plane from landing anywhere in Pakistan. The credibility of the Sharif government was at its lowest ebb then and people celebrated as the military entered the prime minister house, the Pakistan Television headquarters and other important places. Musharraf’s agenda for change and reforms announced in his first speech delivered in the wee hours of the morning were welcomed and greeted by an overwhelming number of Pakistanis with a sigh of relief.
And yes, when Sharif won two-thirds majority in parliament in the 1997 elections there were similar jubilations. Sharif conquered the presidency, fixed the superior courts, axed an army chief and attempted to wield all powers from his office through controversial constitutional amendments. By the time the military coup ended Sharif’s second stint in power, he had lost most of his shine and popularity.
In 1993, Benazir Bhutto also started her second brush with power on high hopes. She had ‘her man’ as the president and a solid support in the parliament. But what happened after that remains a sordid saga of poor governance, misrule and mega corruption. She was eventually stabbed by her own hand-picked president – Farooq Leghari.
Yes, keep tracing your steps backward in Pakistan’s power politics and find comparable joy to despair stories. I am not trying to be cynical or attempting to inject pessimism into Sharif’s well-deserved electoral victory celebrations. Call it ironic, but the current ecstasy reminds me of all those similar dreams and hopes that were shattered and buried soon after the leaders and the led embarked on the arduous journey in search of wonderland.
Let’s hope and pray that Sharif’s third spell as prime minister manages to change this story-line. It hasn’t been written in our stars that we remember each and every ruler and government by their mistakes instead of successes and achievements.
Sharif has been third time lucky. From complete political oblivion in the royal palaces of Saudi Arabia, he is back on centre stage. Many political floaters, who ruled him out and were in the right and left pockets of Musharraf, have rejoined him in droves or are in the process of doing so. It is not just luck or Musharraf and Zardari’s bloopers that helped Sharif return to power. He earned the top slot by playing as a responsible and mature opposition leader and acting with restraint during the last five years.
In these testing times, Sharif must continue on the same course. He must curb his instincts of taking on institutions and individuals to secure turf or strengthen his grip on power. He need not retry this route. After all, Sharif will be a powerful prime minister – courtesy constitutional amendments spearheaded by the former PPP-led government. While in opposition, Sharif has already demonstrated that he can act with responsibility. Now in power there will be a greater need to do so. Rather than competing with other institutions – especially the army – Sharif should act as a consensus-builder.
Pakistan needs a healing touch. Any actions seen as vindictive or aimed at settling old scores in the name of accountability will not just prevent the new government from focusing on the core issues, but could also drag other institutions and political forces into an unnecessary political fray and create an atmosphere of hostility. Therefore, whatever Sharif’s cheerleaders or some of the so-called moral hawks in the popular media might say, Sharif and his core team must focus on the priority issues.
These include, first and foremost, fixing the country’s battered economy, restoring investors’ confidence and triggering growth. These will require tough decisions, belt tightening and hurting powerful interest groups if the government aims to expand the tax base, slash subsidies, and reform loss-making state-run institutions. But for Sharif and his team it should be now or never.
The elected government should be seen standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the barracks on the crucial issue of the war against terrorism. Army Chief General Parvez Ashfaq Kayani has already articulated the goal and the willingness of the security forces to fight and win this conflict. The civilian leadership must not waver; they must support and own the military effort.
The fight against corruption is also vital. Pakistan must make ‘the price of corruption so high’ that it seen to be just not worth it – as is the case in many other countries of the world. But that does not mean the return of the Saif-ur Rehman type of accountability. Fighting corruption should entail not just pursuing cases in a fair and transparent manner, but also removing those flaws and loopholes in the system that allow it to take place.
The first few months are important and decisive in setting the agenda and getting the ball rolling. We must pray for Sharif’s success and hope that he lives up to the challenge. Pakistan is in no position to afford another failure of a civilian ruler. All the country needs is political stability and an honest and dedicated leadership with a sense of purpose. Sharif must rise to this challenge. Now govern – Mr Prime Minister.

The New Age

By Amir Zia
Monday, May 13, 2013
The News

Pakistani voters have voted with maturity. They have done their job. The challenge now for the new parliament and government is to make history by delivering what remained undelivered during the past five years – a clean, efficient, and corruption-free government.

All naysayers and doubters have been proved wrong. Pakistan went to the polls on May 11 and emerged victorious. Voters – young and old, men and women – ignored the Taliban threats and turned up at the polling stations in huge numbers to cast their votes, even in some of the most volatile parts of the country.

By ensuring an unprecedented turnout, Pakistanis also defeated those parochial fundamentalist forces which brand the process of democracy and elections against the principles of Islam. On the polling day, majority of Pakistanis again gave a loud and clear verdict in favour of democracy and the constitution.

All those conspiracy theories about a possible delay in elections or the last-minute derailment of the democratic process were blown to pieces. The military played by the book and those looking towards the GHQ for any overt or covert signals were left disappointed.

Agreed that the day witnessed several incidents of violence and terrorism in different parts of the country that consumed around 50 lives and left dozens others wounded. It is also a fact that at many polling stations the electoral process was marred by mismanagement, irregularities and even outright rigging. In Karachi, thousands had to wait patiently outside some polling stations for hours as ballot boxes, paper and staff arrived late.

But all this will prove a mere footnote in history. The bigger picture for the times to come will be that Pakistan witnessed overwhelmingly free, fair and transparent general elections in which people participated with extraordinary enthusiasm. Despite all the troubles and challenges of today’s Pakistan, by-and-large the mood remained festive and full of optimism on the election day.

At a Karachi polling station, where I waited for more than four hours in a queue along with hundreds of others, the biggest imprint on my mind remains how people voting for rival candidates shared jokes, threw witty one-liners at one another, indulged in serious and not-so-serious political discussions and agreed in their criticism of the slow pace of the balloting process.

Strangers became momentary friends. Some kind-hearted, good souls were offering free bottles of water and juice to the exhausted people waiting for their turn to vote. The younger ones were making way for the elderly and, surprisingly, no one was trying to break the line or showing any sign of impatience. This was Pakistanis at their best. The first-time voters beamed with joy as they walked out of polling booths showing off their marked thumbs. Many were taking photographs of one another – and even of their own thumbs – for Facebook and other social media platforms. The brave families were accompanied by their children including infants. It was indeed a heart-warming experience.

The Pakistani voter seems to have come of age. Although many parts of the country continue to remain in the grip of feudal lords and tribal chiefs and the electoral fate of candidates in many constituencies are still decided on the basis of clans and kinship, today’s voter has started to ask the right questions and judge and scrutinise candidates more minutely. The common Pakistani is now more politically aware – thanks to the media explosion – and is definitely more demanding. The ordinary voter cannot be taken for granted now. This trend remains irreversible.

Imran Khan’s tsunami, though failing to surge, played some role in mobilising many young voters and bringing issues such as corruption to the centre-stage.

The political parties will have to raise the bar of their performance manifold if they have to stay in the game and ensure the continuity of the democratic process. They have to be more open, more accountable and democratic to woo the present and future voters.

In a diverse and populous country like Pakistan, these parties will have to be pluralistic if they want to reach new frontiers and expand or maintain their current support-base. On the tangible level, they will have to take care of their public image, which cannot be made by pretence alone. The politicians will have to walk the talk. In the age of an open media and an independent judiciary, corruption and graft will surely sink their chances of getting re-elected.

The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) under President Asif Ali Zardari failed to get rid of this negative image. This remains one of the key factors for its severe beating in these elections.

The political parties also need to snap ties with criminals and mafias, which have politicised crime and criminalised politics. Karachi remains the prime example of this trend in which all the major parties have contributed in making the situation worse.

The PPP, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), the Awami National Party (ANP) and other, lesser, entities must move to get rid of extortionists, criminals and killers within their ranks.

The MQM managed to hold on to its turf in these elections amidst allegations of rigging and use of strong-arm tactics in select constituencies, but the party must read the signs of the time and reach out to the new, politically aware and educated voter, who primarily wants rule of law and peace in the city.

Under the able hands of President Zardari, the PPP, unfortunately, has been reduced in these elections as largely being a representative of rural Sindh. It needs to do a lot of soul-searching and rethinking. The tricks and double-games of patronising criminals under the garb of so-called peace committees, turning a blind eye to corruption, inefficiency and mismanagement threaten to wipe out the once popular legacy of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his daughter Benazir. Yes, suppression by dictators could not damage the PPP, but the ways of Zardari and his close coterie did exactly this in the last five years. Will the young Bilawal Bhutto Zardari be able to make a difference in the coming years? Will he be able to weed out the corrupt from the PPP ranks and give the party a new vision and ideological basis? At least for now, Bilawal’s chances of performing such a miracle appear slim.

The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) won the nod of approval from the majority on the basis of positive public perception about its efficiency, capacity to handle the economy, an experienced team, and as a party holding moderate views.

Nawaz Sharif – all set to make history by becoming prime minister for the third time – will have to perform a high-wire act now to come up to these expectations which include turning around the economy and handling the challenge of extremism and terrorism. At the same time, he also needs to curb some of his strong instincts, which landed him in trouble in the past.

In today’s Pakistan, muzzling the press won’t be the answer to criticism of his government. It is undoable now. On this front, he must learn the lesson of tolerance from the PPP. Trying to attack the Supreme Court premises with the help of goons also won’t be a bright idea in today’s Pakistan.

Managing civil-military relations also remains a key challenge for the coming Sharif government. The institutions must work under the parameters set by the constitution and not compete against each other. The desire to dominate and the failure to build a consensus on key issues – such as the war against terrorism and extremism – can prove lethal for the country and its democratic process.

Pakistani voters have voted with maturity. They have done their job. The challenge now for the new parliament and government is to make history by delivering what remained undelivered during the past five years – a clean, efficient, and corruption-free government. A government that can tackle the twin challenges of economy and terrorism. Is that too much to ask for?

Selective Justice

By Amir Zia
Monthly Newsline
May, 2013


Why begin the process of accountability from 2007? Why not 1999? Why not 1977? And why just Musharraf.

For the politically naive, who do not understand the Machiavellian twists and turns of Pakistan’s politics, the trial of former military ruler Pervez Musharraf may appear to be an enigma.

How can a military coup, which overthrew an elected government on October 12, 1999 and violated the constitution, remain kosher, while the state of emergency imposed in the country in November 2007 become an act of treason for which only one person – General Musharraf – is being held responsible today?

Didn’t our honourable Chief Justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhary, who led the heroic struggle to establish the supremacy of the judiciary, and many of his colleagues not only endorse the October 1999 coup, but also continued to serve in the Supreme Courts for eight long years? During this entire period, the superior judiciary endorsed, accepted and gave “legitimacy” to the military takeover of power from an elected government.

These were the same judges who gave Musharraf and his team the right to amend the constitution after the 1999 coup and were seen as the main collaborators and arbiters of the unconstitutional step.

If the bloodless coup of 1999 was staged with the help and support of all the senior officials of the Pakistani armed forces and many civilians, so was the 2007 emergency imposed after consultation with the corps commanders of that time and civilian leaders.

It was only after the Chief Justice’s controversial removal in March 2007 that many of them were able to see the light and make the distinction between right and wrong.

However, the Supreme Court, which has taken many suo moto actions – all in the larger public and national interests – did not initiate a similar action against Musharraf or hold him for treason after he resigned from the office of president in August 2008 and continued to stay in the country for at least eight months.

But these are totally different times in Pakistan, and Musharraf is now in a completely changed political landscape where he is being dragged from court to court for treason, murder, terrorism and host of other charges.

In the treason case for the imposition of the 2007 emergency, his opponents in the legal fraternity and politics maintain that he acted alone. The reason: it appears that they do not want to drag the armed forces and sitting generals into the legal fray against the backdrop of reports of growing unease and anger across the ranks of the armed forces resulting from the way their former army chief is being treated by those who themselves have “tainted hands.”

“You cannot single out Musharraf for imposing the state of emergency,” says his lawyer, Ahmed Raza Kasuri. “Musharraf took this step after consulting the vice-chief of army staff and all the other top officials of the armed forces, the prime minister and the cabinet members of that time. It was a collective decision.”

Agreed that the suspension of the Constitution in November 2007 and Musharraf’s crackdown on the judiciary and media were miscalculated and wrong steps, but how can only one person be held responsible for a decision which was said to be a collective one?

Why are charges not being brought against all those who served in the government and facilitated him to assume and retain power? What about the Kasuris, the Legharis, the Tareens, the Chaudhries and other born-again democrats like them who were part of Musharraf’s brigade?

Additionally, why begin the process of accountability from 2007? Why not 1999? And why not 1977?

Wasn’t Nawaz Sharif one of the biggest beneficiaries of the other general, General Zia-ul-Haq, who ousted a democratically elected leader and seized power?

Just for the record, the constitutional definition of treason as given in Article 6, also includes:

(2) Any person aiding or abetting [or collaborating] the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

[(2A) An act of high treason mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) shall not be validated by any court including the Supreme Court and a High Court.]

The other cases being pursued against Musharraf appear to be politically motivated and reek of partiality and vindictiveness. Of them the Benazir Bhutto murder case and the crackdown on the Lal Mosque must top the list.

If President Asif Ali Zardari or Mian Shahbaz Sharif cannot be tried for their failure to protect the Punjab Governor, Salman Taseer against terrorist threats following his support for a blasphemy case victim, Aasia Bibi, as also all other victims of terrorism and violence, similarly Musharraf cannot be held responsible for the terrorist gun-and-grenade attack on Ms Bhutto, who ignored the security briefs to reach out to the masses like an outstandingly brave leader.

If General Pervez Ashfaq Kayani can be deemed accountable for clearing Swat of the Taliban militants, then Musharraf and his aides – many of whom are still serving in the army – can most certainly be tried for the Lal Mosque operation against the militants holed up there, who were challenging the writ of the state. These well-trained militants, armed with grenades, automatic weapons and rocket launchers, were operating in the federal capital and killed 11 soldiers over the course of the eight-day siege. Could or rather, should any state have tolerated such a direct challenge to its writ and authority?

The case of Nawab Akbar Bugti has also been distorted by many politicians for their own vested interests. The fact is that the security forces swung into action against Bugti and his band of warriors after a prolonged stand-off. For months, Bugti’s followers were firing rockets on the natural gas installations and other important government targets, declaring a virtual revolt against the state. According to reports of security officials, Bugti is said to have died when he detonated a bomb inside a cave where he was hiding. Four military officers, who were negotiating his surrender, also lost their lives in that incident.

As for the trial itself, the manner in which some of the honourable judges are proceeding goes against their best traditions.

Take the case of the Honourable Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui of the Islamabad High Court. He cancelled Musharraf’s bail in a bailable offence in the judges’ detention case, according to Musharraf’s lawyers.

“Getting bail is the right of a person in a bailable offence…even when the police knocks at your door, you can get a personal bail bond in a bailable offence,” argues one of Musharraf’s key lawyers, Ahmed Raza Kasuri.

“Judges never order arrest in the court, as was done in Mr Musharraf’s case…judges simply accept or reject a bail application. The rest is the job of the police,” he added.

Justice Siddiqui has had a long association with the Jamaat-e-Islami and he even ran in the 2002 elections from NA-54 (Rawalpindi) on a Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) ticket. More significantly, he was also one of the lawyers of Maulana Abdul Aziz in the Lal Mosque case. Perhaps, the Justice should have done the honourable thing by stepping down from the case in order to avoid any accusations of being biased. “The bias of any judge sends a wrong signal to the world about Pakistan,” says Kasuri.

Ironically, the man who is being charged with terrorism is the man who played a key role in the global war against terrorism, and remains one of the most sought-after target of the terrorists. Musharraf narrowly escaped death twice, when terrorists tried to blow up his cavalcade.

It is not enough for the superior judiciary to dispense justice, justice must be seen to have been done – that is the challenge before them. Judges cannot and must not play to the gallery. They should not be influenced by a section of the rightwing media and cheerleaders of the Taliban and Lal Mosque insurgents. It can have a disastrous affect on Pakistan’s politics, which needs a healing hand and not the continuation of a cycle of revenge.

Some among the lawyers’ fraternity are only vitiating the atmosphere of the court and lowering its dignity by resorting to sloganeering and violence against Musharraf and his supporters during the general’s court appearances. Such provocation will not further the cause of justice and democracy; it will only serve as a black mark against an institution, that is held in high esteem.

False Fault Lines

By Amir Zia
Monday, May 6, 2013
The News

It is necessary to remove the cobwebs of confusion about the legitimacy of this conflict, which has been imposed upon us by the extremists.

What are the dividing ideological frontiers in the fight against religious extremism and terrorism in Pakistan? Have distinct battle lines been drawn between liberal secularists and Islamists? Is it only the former who oppose Al-Qaeda and its local allies, including the Taliban and their narrow interpretation of Islam and tactics of violence and terrorism? Is it a fact that all religious-minded people and various Islamic schools of thought support these militant non-state actors? Is the impression correct that all right-wing and religious elements want Pakistan’s armed forces to unilaterally end the operation against these militants?

Some right-wing politicians, opinion makers and analysts would certainly like us to buy this paradigm. Similarly, there are those liberals and secularists who want to simplify this protracted conflict on these so-called ideological lines. These two subjective interpretations distort the reality but, unfortunately, they dominate the narrative on the national media.

This debate has acquired a fresh intensity in the run-up to the May 11 elections against the backdrop of a surge in violence, and especially after Army Chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s recent speech in which he focused on the internal security challenges, calling for a united national consensus against those who defy the constitution and attempt to impose their narrow world view under the garb of Islam.

However, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, the Jamaat-e-Islami and those analysts who tend to agree with these parties have been quick to shoot down General Kayani’s remarks, saying that the war against militants who are responsible for attacks on key military installations – including the GHQ – and the killing of thousands of security personnel and civilians in suicide bombings and other terrorists attacks remains an ‘American War’. An impression has been given that General Kayani’s speech must have made Pakistani secularists and liberals jump with joy.

Ironically, on the other side of this great divide, the Pakistan People’s Party, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement and the Awami National Party and their cheerleaders are also portraying this conflict as liberals or secularists against militants and their right-wing supporters. Yes, these three parties have suffered colossal losses at the hands of terrorists who escalated attacks on their leaders and workers ahead of the elections. It is also a fact that these parties remain unable to carry out their election campaigns openly – unlike their rivals, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. But this ‘us-versus-them mentality’ remains an oversimplification of a rather complex issue.

The first fallacy that has been created by extremists and their allies is that it is the Pakistani state and its institutions that triggered the conflict with ‘God-fearing, good Muslims’ at the behest of the US. But the facts are very different. The Pakistani state, even under the former military ruler Pervez Musharraf, only wanted to stop the misuse of its territory as a safe haven for militants from across the world and for orchestrating terrorism aimed at other countries as well as within Pakistan. The actual American War remains on the other side of the Durand Line in Afghanistan – and not in Pakistan. Islamabad stands justified in its efforts to establish the writ of the state on Pakistani territory and get the country out of the self-destructive path of being bracketed with militant non-state actors.

There have been several attempts and at least five peace accords with the Pakistani Taliban to abolish safe havens for foreign militants and terrorist groups, and stop the use of Pakistan’s territory as their resting, recruiting, training, planning and fund-raising facility. As a responsible member of the international community, Pakistan is obligated to do this. But the policy of negotiations and appeasement by the former military-led government did not achieve the desired goal.

The 2007 Lal Masjid episode proved a watershed event as armed and trained militants battled with the security forces for more than a week in the heart of the federal capital. The then government had no choice but to use force against these militants who challenged the writ of the state, tried to create a state within the state and resorted to street vigilantism. Any country – democratic or undemocratic – would have opted for a similar course of action to quell this kind of revolt.

In a nut-shell, it is these militants, who imposed conflict on Pakistan. The state had no choice but to respond for self-preservation.

The second major erroneous belief is that only Pakistani liberals and secularists support the war against terrorism. No, along with liberals and secularists, a vast majority of right-wing and religious-minded people also oppose the Taliban and their narrow interpretation of Islam. Religious scholars and clerics belonging to almost every Islamic school of thought including Barelvis, Deobandis, Ahl-e-Hadis, the Sunnis and the Shias, have condemned the Taliban’s acts of violence, their defiance of Pakistan’s constitution and democracy, and brutal tactics of killings and mass murders.

Maulana Hasan Jan, a respected Deobandi cleric, who defeated Khan Abdul Wali Khan in his home constituency of Charsadda in the general elections, was killed by the Taliban because he condemned suicide bombings and declared them to be against the sacred principles of Islam. There have been many other such incidents in which religious scholars were silenced and even forced to leave the country for opposing the alarmingly narrow world view of militants, which is incompatible with modernity and progress.

Many right-wing parties, including the PML-N, also support efforts to curb terrorism, extremism and violence in the society, though during their election campaigns they have kept a meaningful silence in public over this issue.

Then we have various brands of nationalists in Sindh, Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and parts of southern Punjab who also oppose the Taliban and the likes of Al-Qaeda.

Last but not the least is the institution of the Pakistani armed forces, which in no way can be branded as secular or liberal. It represents all the diverse shades of Pakistan and is a vanguard of Pakistan’s struggle against extremism and militancy. Confusing the war against militants as that of liberals and secularists versus Islamists or religious-minded people is a deliberate distortion of facts, and it is dangerous for the country’s cohesion and unity.

General Kayani hit the bull’s eye when he said that “there is no room for doubts when it comes to dealing with rebellion against the state.”

“We as a nation need to forge consensus towards evolving a clear policy through mutual consultations. Considering this war against terrorism as the war of the armed forces alone can lead to chaos and disarray that we cannot afford,” he said in his speech on April 30 (Youm-e-Shuhada).

It is necessary to remove the cobwebs of confusion about the legitimacy of this conflict, which has been imposed upon us by the extremists. The handful of religious parties and their affiliate analysts should raise themselves above short-term political interests and back the armed forces in this war against terrorism.

The first step for them should be to condemn all those forces that resort to violence, terrorism, suicide attacks targeting civilians, political rivals and security personnel in the name of Islam. There should also be a consensus that any force or group raising weapons against the state, challenging its writ or openly defying the country’s constitution should be dealt with the proverbial ‘iron hand’.

But do the Jamaat-e-Islami, the JUI-F and the PTI have the courage and the intellectual honesty to act this way? Pakistan wants an answer. These forces should not disappoint the people again by siding with those responsible for brutalising our society and killing more than 50,000 people. They must act in the national interest. . A small, organised minority cannot be allowed to take this nation of more than 180 million people hostage.

It Is Pakistan’s War

By Amir Zia
May 2, 2013
The News

All those advocating a policy of appeasement for these extremist forces and who want to strike deals with them stand on the wrong side of history. They can only help prolong Pakistan’s misery for a while at the hands of militants, but eventually they will be defeated.

Pakistanis should breathe easy now and feel a bit more confident about their country’s future. Yes, the good news is that the Pakistan Army – the country’s most powerful institution – is not yielding before Al-Qaeda and its local militant allies, who have long been tarnishing the sacred name of Islam by killing unarmed civilians and Pakistani security forces through cowardly acts of terrorism.

All the ambiguity and confusion created by the handful of Al-Qaeda and Taliban apologists, who brand Pakistan’s twin challenge of extremism and terrorism as an ‘American War’, should be removed after Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s recent assertion that the fight against an enemy that defies the constitution of Pakistan and the democratic process and considers all forms of bloodshed justified should not be considered someone else’s war.

“We cannot afford to confuse our soldiers and weaken their resolve with such misgivings,” the army chief said. No country, even the best evolved democratic states, would tolerate treason and seditious uprisings against the state, he said – underlining the importance of the unwavering support of the masses to their armed forces in any such struggle.

General Kayani’s April 30 speech on the occasion of ‘Youm-e-Shuhada’ (Martyrs’ Day) is perhaps one of his most important, timely and profound speeches in which he touched upon two key themes – democracy and Pakistan’s efforts against extremism and terrorism. The message conveyed in this speech should end the atmosphere of uncertainty and any misgivings regarding both the future of democracy in the country and the armed forces’ position on the war on terrorism. It should boost the confidence of both the barracks and the civilians and bring more cohesion and commitment among them in their efforts to defeat extremists and terrorists, who remain bent upon imposing their distorted ideology and narrow and flawed version of Islam in the country, where 99.9 percent of the population is made up of moderate and peace-loving Muslims.

The first part of General Kayani’s speech expressed the armed forces’ commitment of strengthening the democratic process, which has already been proven by the way the army leadership stuck to its constitutional role despite intense pressure by various quarters that it should act to clean up the stables.

The general rightly underlined that the success of democracy doesn’t merely rest on elections, but more importantly on the prosperity and welfare of the masses. Our mainstream political parties must pay heed to this simple and sincere advice of the army chief, who should get equal marks for keeping the country’s fragile democratic process afloat despite all its weaknesses, tales of alleged mega-corruption and poor governance. The major political parties must put their house in order on a war-footing because the country can hardly bear even one year of the kind of directionless and shady rule that was witnessed during the 2008-2013 ‘democratic era’ let alone another full five years of such term.

General Kayani also used the occasion to dispel any doubts that might linger in the minds of many that the elections could be postponed at the last minute against the backdrop of a string of terrorist attacks on leaders, workers and followers of the three main liberal political parties by the Taliban, who apparently want to weaken their electoral prospects. The Taliban threat to the former ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and the Awami National Party (ANP) advertently or inadvertently benefits the electoral prospects of religious and right-wing parties which are carrying out their campaigns without any fear of terrorism.

General Kayani’s most clear message, however, remains that of taking ownership of the war on terrorists and extremists, who are responsible for more than 50,000 killings of Pakistani civilians and security forces personnel since 2002. He rightly criticised those politicians and religious leaders who waste time in debating the ‘origins of the war on terror’ – incorrectly calling it a US war.

The army chief’s Youm-e-Shuhada speech should be seen as an expansion of the important theme he raised in his April 20 speech at the passing out parade of young officers in Kakul where he emphasised that Islam should always remain a unifying force.

Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and the Jamaat-e-Islamis of this world should take note since they are trying their best to undermine the sacrifices made by Pakistan’s security forces and civilians in the war on terror by calling the struggle for Pakistan’s future as a US war. They are serving the interests of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban when they demand that the army unilaterally withdraw from the lawless and militant-infested northern region of Pakistan and abandon its international and national responsibility of reining in these non-state actors, who blow up schools, attack mosques, assassinate political rivals and carry out bombings and terrorist attacks targeting civilians and security forces alike.

The barbaric acts and crimes of Al-Qaeda and local terrorists cannot be forgotten nor forgiven no matter what any Imran Khans or Munawar Hasans might say. The state cannot surrender before these forces of darkness wanting to transform Pakistan into a pariah state in the international community and impose their oppressive system using the sacred name of Islam which in fact stands for moderation, human dignity and progress.

All those advocating a policy of appeasement for these extremist forces and who want to strike deals with them stand on the wrong side of history. They can only help prolong Pakistan’s misery for a while at the hands of militants, but eventually they will be defeated. This is as inevitable as day is followed by night.

Since 2002, Pakistan’s armed forces – the military in particular – have been at the forefront in the fight against terrorism. From Pakistan’s point of view, the objectives of the war remain simple; foreign militants should not be allowed to operate from Pakistani soil and be sent packing to their countries of origin. If their countries refuse to take them, which happened in most cases when these militants were caught, Pakistan as a matter of policy will hand them over to the US-led Nato forces.

The second important objective is that non-state actors – be they foreign or local – should not be allowed to use Pakistani territory for global or domestic terrorism. These objectives remain in line with Pakistan’s national interest as well as its responsibility as a member of the international community.

General Kayani would know better all the challenges and pain Pakistan has endured during this protracted conflict since he has remained on key command positions during all these turbulent times – from the head of the Inter Services Intelligence to the vice chief of the army staff and then as army chief.

It is indeed heartening the way General Kayani has articulated the mission statement of his forces of fighting both the external and internal enemies of the country in which defeating terrorists remains a matter of prime importance. Indeed, the military leadership has again raised itself to the challenge as our soldiers battle these enemies of Pakistan and Islam on various fronts. It is now the responsibility of our politicians and all the other sections of society to support this effort in all possible ways. They should all take the ownership of this war to defeat the extremist mindset and counter their narrative.

This is not the time to waver or doubt the legitimacy of this conflict. Our soldiers need all our unconditional support – because they alone have the capacity and ability to win this war for Pakistan.