Here we go again

By Ardeshir Cowasjee

THE Supreme Court under the able leadership of Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, chief justice of this most elegant of Republics and its peerless leadership, has seen fit to rule that the Brothers Sharif, Nawaz and Shahbaz, by means of their own acts and deeds, have disqualified themselves from holding public office.
That there are hundreds of their brethren in politics who are more than deserving of the same fate — from the highest to lowest — has so far escaped the attention of the apex court.
However, now ‘lines have been drawn’ and the battle is so far on for the top-dog slot (though knowing the local inconsistencies of friendship and enmity it is not inconceivable that the adversaries will at some stage fall into each other’s arms).
Mendacity is the order of the day, with both sides of contenders bandying lies and assertions, none uninvolved in the fray being able to differentiate between the two verbal sets. The presidential band under the sole leadership of our accidental head of state, Asif Zardari, and the Brothers Sharif and their cohorts, are equally adept at twisting facts and truths to suit whatever stand politics and expediency dictate.
We hear that in this expected spat democracy is the loser, but when in this country has democracy even drawn let alone won? We are also told that democracy allows losers and winners alike to protest or celebrate, that demonstrations are the stuff of true democracy. But then, which provision of our distorted constitution gives any citizen the right to disturb public life, damage public or private property, and generally create mayhem?
From the Afghan frontiers to the shores of the Arabian Sea we are now, yet again, witnessing the fact that in this land the word ‘tolerance’ has no standing, that it forms no part of the local lingo or of the national mindset. This is a true shame for it shows up in full force that we are an uneducated nation, that even those who have learnt abroad and perhaps imbued the diktats of tolerance merely throw their learning to the winds on returning to the homeland.
A learned friend of mine, once a high policeman, an avid reader and collector of books, to whom education has firmly stuck and who is aware of the meaning of tolerance, once described the antics of the South Asians as those belonging to ‘subcontinental monkeys’ — a wild horde attacking a blackened bunch of bananas. This lack of tolerance ensures and enforces the fact that none of our past rulers and certainly none of the present lot on both sides of the divide wish for or could put up with an independent judiciary — thus, the nation is bereft of justice and will remain so until the current political slate is wiped clean.
As for this latest imbroglio, which has come hand in hand with the Taliban/TSNM ‘deal’ purchased in Swat and Malakand, and with the outing of the truth about the Fata drone attacks, the international media has leapt upon it with alacrity and glee as being one more sign that this troubled republic is indeed a failing state. And how fares our own media? So far so good, but there are the usual reports that come with each regime when it feels threatened, that there are those at the top contemplating restrictions. This would be the height of stupidity, as stupid an act as any so far committed by this Zardari dispensation.
However, our media is prone to totally futile self-censorship at times, which with the Internet in full flow is self-defeating and also stupid. The Wall Street Journal, a distinguished publication in the US with a circulation of 5.2 million (Dec 2008 figure) on Feb 26 carried a lengthy comment on Pakistan and its shenanigans under the title ‘Pakistan’s Leader Stirs Fresh Turmoil’. The ‘leader’ is of course the one and only Asif Zardari to whom the appellation ‘president’ still to many seems strange and misplaced. However, for our sins, we must suffer.
It rightly focuses upon the man who now calls all the shots in governance, with a handful of sinister cronies allied to or members of his party (now his party, rather than the party of the people). It opens up: ‘When Asif Ali Zardari won the presidency last year, he vowed to unite this fractious country after nearly a decade of military rule. Instead, Zardari is emerging as a divisive figure at a time when Pakistan faces a rising Islamist insurgency and a stuttering economy.
‘The widower of slain former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is alienating both allies and foes. Even his personal style has turned off supporters of his wife — some of whom serve in his government but are now reluctant to deal with him directly. At meetings in recent months, according to several witnesses, he lashed out at senior ministers, calling one a ‘witch’ and another ‘impotent’.… Zardari, 53 years old, declined to be interviewed for this story…. Today Zardari rarely ventures outside the presidential palace…. presidential aides say security concerns keep him inside. … Some of those who visit him there, however, say they are frequently subjected to boorish behaviour….’
The article was reproduced in the national press, but with certain omissions, which are not included here as they would probably not pass muster. But all interested can easily log on to the WSJ website — apart from finding it widely distributed on the email circuit.
Nothing unusual — Zardari is merely emulating his father-in-law, a master at publicly dishing out colourful abuses to his lieutenants. Few of his close associates were spared his taunting or his rudeness — telling people to ‘shut up’ or, like Zardari now, mocking ‘their personal foibles, divorces, affairs’. But Zardari is not Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and never will be. He is in no way a match for ZAB’s peculiar and in part destructive genius.
The damage has been done, but can be mitigated. More serious matters may be afoot to hold the undivided attention of our friends in Washington and New York. Our duo in the States, HH1 and HH2 could be instructed to convey the ‘mitigated’ version, but they should act in unison rather than aggravate matters. Let us not forget former COAS Gen Wahid Kakar who in 1993, without raising a stick or moving a brigade saw off, calmly and peacefully, both president and prime minister.

A perilous road

As the PPP’s game plan in Punjab unfolds, there remain more questions than answers. It appears that the imposition of governor’s rule in Punjab and changes to the administrative structure in the province were meant to create a fait accompli that would tempt the PML-Q to hitch its fortunes to the PPP and allow the two parties to shut the PML-N out of power in Punjab.
Thus far the PML-Q had allowed itself to be courted by both sides, perhaps in the hope of ultimately extracting a higher price from either side for its support. But the PML-Q’s indecision may also have to do with concerns about its own future.
On the one hand, a PML-Q alliance with the PML-N runs the risk of losing its independent status and being reabsorbed by the party from which it was cleaved by Gen Musharraf. On the other hand, an alliance with the PPP runs the risk of creating an unstable government that from the get-go will be besieged by the most popular party in Punjab.
By altering the political ground in Punjab, the PPP may have hoped the PML-Q would quickly fall in line behind it. But that has not happened. Furthermore, the PPP appears to have miscalculated on two other counts. First, the ferociousness of the PML-N’s response may have taken the PPP by surprise.
The disqualified Sharif brothers have launched fierce attacks against President Zardari and threatened agitation on the streets of Punjab that may spin out of control. Second, some members of the ruling coalition in Islamabad have expressed dismay at the turn of events in Punjab and not thrown their support behind the PPP.
Yesterday’s hastily convened session of the National Assembly called at the government’s request may then have been an attempt at damage limitation to switch the attention to Islamabad while matters are stitched up in the wheeling and dealing that is no doubt under way in Punjab. Strong speeches were expected from the floor of the National Assembly and Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, the PML-N leader of the opposition and a powerful orator, delivered the expected verbal blows.
What happens next is worryingly uncertain. Even if the PPP is able to cobble together a government in Punjab, the lawyers’ long march looms and could result in a violent confrontation between the lawyers and the PML-N on one side and the PPP on the other. If that happens, the Punjab crisis will become a national crisis.
Even otherwise it is hard to see how events in Punjab will not undermine governance at the centre. The rub lies in the fact that the PPP and PML-N are two lumbering giants that straddle this country. When they square off, everything and everyone else is almost sure to be trampled underfoot.

Swat’s uneasy truce

The uneasy calm that prevails in Swat as a consequence of the controversial agreement between the NWFP government and the militants through the leader of the Tehrik Nifaz-i-Shariat Muhammadi ,Maulana Sufi Muhammad, is accident prone and could prove to be short-lived.
This was demonstrated by the cold-blooded murder of journalist Musa Khankhel and the abduction of the Swat DCO. The latter was released shortly afterwards reportedly in exchange for some militants in government custody. The accord envisages the restoration of the qazi courts and the imposition of Sharia.
This precarious truce is based on logic bordering on absurdity. A democratically elected government has entered into an agreement whereby the writ of the state is being virtually handed over to a group of clerics who believe that democracy itself is un-Islamic. Sufi Muhammad is reported to have said, ‘From the very beginning, I have viewed democracy as a system imposed on us by the infidels. Islam does not allow democracy or elections.’
Further, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan under the leadership of Maulana Fazlullah has to be brought on board if this accord has any chance of survival. The Sharia would, therefore, be imposed by the TNSM and TTP whose skewed interpretation of Islamic laws is well known. They have already relegated women to a pariah status, disallowed girls from attending school and consider dissent an intolerable crime punishable by death.
The acceptance by Swat residents to live under totalitarian rule and their willingness to sacrifice fundamental human rights should not be considered as the triumph of extremist ideology but a lack of faith in the state to protect them against this menace.
Apparently, the truce, for whatever it is worth, has been negotiated through the wrong person. Maulana Sufi is a mere figurehead and actual power vests in his firebrand son-in-law Maulana Fazlullah. It is unlikely that Fazlullah will agree to
surrender his weapons without which any agreement is meaningless. Furthermore, it has been reported that he is demanding amnesty for the death and devastation that he and his followers have inflicted on Swat.
Once again, whatever the logic behind this deal, the NWFP government has negotiated it from a position of weakness and is, therefore, being perceived as having capitulated to militant forces. To all appearances, the former has abandoned its responsibilities and has become a passive bystander as the militants decide on how they will enforce their warped interpretation of Islamic law.
The experience of Pakistan in recent times has been that the appeasement of extremists does not pay. A case in point is the Lal Masjid episode of July 2007 where the government turned a blind eye to the accumulation of a huge arsenal by the clerics of the mosque. Had preventive measures been taken earlier, the ensuing bloodbath could have been avoided. Furthermore, such appeasement only gives confidence to the militants that they can perpetrate acts of terrorist violence with impunity in any part of the country.
The ANP-led government in the NWFP seems to believe that the accord it has negotiated with Sufi Muhammad will result in sustainable peace and stability. The latter’s statement that a Taliban-style dispensation will be replicated in other Muslim countries belies the assumption of the Pakistan government that the cleric and his cohorts will be content with the imposition of Sharia in Swat alone. The cancer of terrorism in the guise of religion is likely to spread as is evident from the recent blasts in Dera Ismail Khan and other similar incidents.
Previous deals with the militants in the tribal areas were also acclaimed with similar optimism but had disastrous consequences. In each instance, the hiatus in military operations provided an opportunity to the terrorists to regroup, reorganise and replenish their supplies. The peace accords thus proved fragile and were violated by the Taliban.
This seems to have been brushed under the rug by the NWFP government whose ‘indecent haste’ to conclude the agreement with Sufi Muhammad was motivated by fear as well as its inability to stop the carnage in Swat.
World opinion on this agreement is also divided. Some subscribe to the point of view held by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates that the peace accord can lead to eventual stabilisation and, therefore, could be worthy of emulation by the Afghan government. Others believe, as does the US special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, that the agreement is tantamount to the capitulation of the state and can only further embolden the militants.
Howsoever this truce is analysed is inconsequential; what matters is that the people of Swat have virtually been coerced into accepting the Taliban interpretation of Islamic doctrine. To date the Swat insurgency has displaced approximately 50 per cent of its 1.8 million residents.
They are now being asked to return to their homes on the questionable assumption of the NWFP government that lasting peace has been restored in the valley. The actual beneficiaries of the accord are the militants who have consolidated themselves in yet another area of Pakistan.