AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE UNDER THE STRESS
OF FEARS AND PREJUDICES
Hamid Khan
Former President
Pakistan Supreme Court Bar Association
After 11th September, 2001, the World has witnessed overbearing attitude of American Government towards the citizens of other countries particularly those from the Muslim countries. The aliens living in the United States, particularly Muslims, have been targeted and subjected to humiliating searches at the airports and other points of entry. The persons with Muslim names and Arab looks traveling on the domestic fights in the U.S.A. are repeatedly body searched and their baggages are opened time and again for search. The persons arrested in Afghanistan who were suspected to be terrorists belonging to Al-Qaida or Taliban organizations were transported to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in most inhuman and unbearable conditions reminiscent of the days of transportation of slaves from Africa to the American continent. At Guantanamo, these prisoners, may of whom have been found innocent after months of confinement, are kept in most inhuman and appalling conditions. They have been housed in very small cells where a man cannot even stretch himself, they are shackled in chains and have been reportedly tortured. The aliens, mostly from Muslims countries, are required to register themselves with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The registration process includes being photographed from front and side profiles, finger printed and obtaining other personal details that would be stored in a data bank. In this process, many Pakistanis and Arabs have been detained and are likely to be deported.
It is indeed shocking to many, particularly the members of Muslim Countries and their Westernized elites, who genuinely believed the USA as leader of the free World and champion of human rights and civil liberties. Various American Governments had lectured other countries on human rights and civil liberties and censured those with a record of abuse of such rights and liberties. How come all of a sudden the American Administration is itself abusing the human rights and civil liberties of others and so blatantly? Why the Congress, which had always projected itself as a model legislature for the World and upholder of the human rights and civil liberties through legislation, has failed to check such abuses and has rather itself became party to such abuse by enactment of draconian laws? Why has the congress conferred unfettered and excessive powers on the executive authorities on the pretext of conducting war on terrorism? Why has the common American acquiesced to abuses of human rights and civil liberties. Why the public opinion in the United States has been so pliable and susceptible to the propaganda war waged by the Administration?
It is in this scenario that it needs to be considered if there is any remedy available in the court system of the United States for the beleaguered Muslims residing in the United States or detained in the detention camp at the Guantanamo Bay. The discussion on this matter would necessarily involve the third organ of the state in the U.S.A., that is, judiciary. The matter is issue would be: Do the American Courts protect individuals against abuses of human rights and civil liberties in times of national fear or acute national prejudices? If such abuses are challenged before the U.S. Courts, what kind of verdicts could be expected? Would it live to their reputation of judicial activism or would it bend its doctrines to provide legal justification to such abuses? Let us discuss and analyses the record of the American judiciary and jurisprudence in protecting human rights and civil liberties in difficult times in the historical context.
The American Constitution is the first written democratic Constitution in the World. It contained a comprehensive bill of rights in the first nine amendments which included amongst others the freedoms of religion, assembly, speech and press; the rights of life, liberty and property; freedom to bear arms and right of trial by jury. All these rights existed in some form or the other in Britain before they were formally recorded in the American Constitution. However, in addition to these, the American Constitution extended to its citizens and residents two basic democratic safeguards expressed as doctrines of ‘due process of law’ and ‘equal protection of the laws’. The American jurisprudence developed these concepts through interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court and built them up as vanguards of liberal democracy and protectors of basic human rights and liberties.
The American Courts have jealously guarded these rights over the last more than two centuries. Under the concept of ‘substantive due process’, the fairness of a law is judged by the courts much as it would be by a legislature. The concept of ‘procedural due process’ broadly provides for adequate opportunity to answer the allegations and fair trial according to settled course of judicial proceedings. The concept of ‘equal protection of laws’ means that no person should be denied the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances in their lives, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness. The guiding principle most often stated by the courts is that this constitutional guarantee requires that all persons should be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions.
These great concepts have helped United States build a just, tolerant and democratic society. These concepts have been adopted by other countries particularly those freed from colonial rule, in their own written constitutions. The judgments given by the U.S. Supreme Court elaborating these concepts have enabled the citizens to lead meaningful lives and enjoy true liberty. The superior Courts in many countries, particularly after the Second World War, have followed the reasoning and rationale of the judgments of the U.S. Supreme Court in constitutional matters. Nevertheless, it would be useful to examine if interpretation of laws pertaining to fundamental rights and civil liberties by the U.S. Supreme Court has been consistent throughout its history.
In the first half century after independence, slavery emerged as the most important legal issue in the context of the Bill of Rights and the contemporary politico-socio-economic scenario in the U.S.A. It became a divisive issue particularly between the northern industrialized states that had little use for the Negro slave labour and the southern agriculturist states largely dependent upon the Negro slave labour. Ultimately this issue of individual freedom as against the right of property of slave owners was tested in the case of ‘Dred Scott v. Sanford’ [15 L.Ed. 691 (1857)]. At the time when the U.S. Supreme Court deliberated over the Dred Scott case, a bitter controversy was building up in the country as a divisive political issue between slavery and antislavery forces that later led to civil was in 1861. Scott was a slave when his owner took him from the slave state of Missouri into the free state of Illinois under the Missouri Compromise of 1820 passed by the U.S. Congress. Scott claimed that when he was taken to Illinois, his status had automatically changed from slave to a free person. When he was taken back to Missouri by his owner he sued in Missouri State Court that he be declared a free man. The case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided it in 1857 in favour of the slave owner whose right of property was upheld. The Court was swayed by the prevalent racial prejudices particularly because it had a majority of judges from the Southern states which favoured slavery. The following passages from this judgment reflect the prevailing prejudice against the Negro race that had overwhelmed the minds of the judges in the highest Court regardless of the fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution.
“In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.”
“They had far more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order; and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concerns, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.”
“And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed or more uniformly acted upon than by the English Government and English people. They not only seized them on the coast of Africa, and sold them or held them in slavery for their own use; but they took them as ordinary articles of merchandise to every country where they could make a profit on them, and were far more extensively engaged in this commerce than any other nation in the world.”
“The opinion thus entertained and acted upon in England was naturally impressed upon the colonies they founded on this side of the Atlantic. And, accordingly, a Negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property, and held, and bought and sold as such, in every one of the thirteen colonies which united in the Declaration of Independence, and afterwards formed the Constitution of the United States. The slaves were more or less numerous in the different Colonies, as slave labour was found more or less profitable. But no one seems to have doubted the correctness of the prevailing opinion of the time.”
The slavery was abolished under the Constitution (under Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments) after the American civil war but the innate racial prejudices amongst the members of the white race of being superior persisted. Thus, the requirement of ‘equal protection of laws’ under the Fourteenth Amendment was circumvented by introducing segregation on racial lines in the railroad trains, public schools, public parks and other public facilities. A Louisiana law of 1890 required “equal but separate accommodations” for white and black railroad passengers. Plessy, a Negro, who had refused to vacate a seat in a coach reserved for whites but was removed forcibly therefrom challenged the constitutionality of the law on the ground that it denied him equal protection. The judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case ‘Plessy v. Ferguson’ [163 U.S. 537 (1896)] upheld the Louisiana law as reasonable exercise of state police power and not violative of ‘equal protection of laws’ clause of the Constitution. The following passages of the majority opinion of the Court would reflect racial prejudice of the judges though expressed in much more muffled and temperate words than was the case with Scott judgment:
“We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiffs argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.
“The argument also assumes that social prejudices may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured to the Negro except by an enforced commingling of the two races. We cannot accept this proposition. If the two races are to meet on terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinities, a mutual appreciation of each other’s merits and a voluntary consent of individuals….. Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial instincts or to abolish distinctions based upon physical differences, and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation. If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same place…..”
Even the famous dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan in this case was not free from racial overtones as is apparent from the following extract:
“The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in the country. And so it is, in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth, and in power. So I doubt not that it will continue to be for all times, if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty. But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizen. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.”
It took nearly sixty years for the U.S. Supreme Court to dispense with the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine in the case of “Brown v. Board of Education” [347 U.S. 483 (1954)] and to agree with the opinion of justice Harlan in Plessy case.
The American jurisprudence has not been entirely free of religious prejudice, which found expression in the case against religious practices of Mormons despite freedom of religions guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution. The Mormons is a Christian sect of latter day saint introduced by Joseph Smith from upstate New York who had proclaimed himself as prophet in 1827. The Christians in the U.S.A. felt alarmed and thought that the faith of Mormons would contaminate christianity. Thus the Mormons faced persecution throughout U.S.A. during the nineteenth century. They practiced polygamy, which was declared a crime under a federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court in ‘Reynolds v. United States’ [98 U.S. 145 (1890)] declared that polygamy had been traditionally condemned and that “it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life”.
Apart from the prejudices overwhelming the judgment of the people and Courts of the U.S.A. at critical junctures of its history, the fears and insecurity of American people at various points in time have also hampered the American jurisprudence in its development and manifestation. The freedom of speech and press, constitutionally ordained under the First Amendment to the Constitution, have always been regarded sacrosanct by the Americans. However, during difficult times, particularly when United States was at war, these freedoms were negated by controversial construction placed on these freedoms by the U.S. Supreme Court. When the United States entered the First World War in 1917, it passed the Espionage Act of 1917 which provided for punishment for making reports or statements with intent to interfere with the operation and success of the military or naval forces of United States or for obstructing the recruitment of enlistment in armed forces. Schenck was convicted for violating the Espionage Act because he had been distributing circulars persuading draftees (conscripts) to refuse induction. His conviction was upheld in ‘Schenck v. United States’ [249 U.S. 47 (1919)] despite the plea of stringent protection of free speech. The Court held that the protection of free speech did not extend when ‘the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger. The doctrine of ‘clear and present danger’ was applied to other cases pertaining to dissemination of written materials opposed to participation in or conduct of war by the United States.
After the end of the first World War, Americans felt alarmed by spread of communism in Russia and other European countries and the American Government took measures to contain it in the American Continent. In this process, the rights of free speech and press once again came under serious strain. Anita Whitney was involved in organizing the Communist Labour Party and as a delegate to a party convention had supported a resolution that advocated political action to being about political change in the United States. She was tried and convicted under the California Criminal Syndicalism Act which made it a crime to advocate, teach and aid the commission of crime, sabotage, unlawful acts of force, violence or terrorism to bring about change in industrial ownership or control or to effect any political change. Despite the fact that Whitney had only favoured political action through democratic means to advance communism, her conviction was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in ‘Whitney v. California’ [274 U.S. 357 (1927)]. The reasoning of the court is reflective of the fear of communism prevailing at the time, as expressed in the following passage:
“That the freedom of speech which is secured by the Constitution does not confer an absolute right to speak, without responsibility, whatever one may choose, or an unrestricted and unbridled license giving immunity for every possible use of language and preventing the punishment of those who abuse this freedom; and that a State in the exercise of its police power may punish those who abuse its freedom by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to incite to crime, disturb the public peace, or endanger the foundations of organized Government and threaten its overthrow by unlawful means, is not open to question.”
After the Second World War, there was widespread fear and insecurity prevailing amongst the people in the United States due to emergence of the Soviet Union as a super power. Dennis and his associates were convicted in July 1948 under the conspiracy provisions of the Smith Act, 1940. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the convictions in ‘Dennis v. United States’ [341 U.S. 494 (1951)] holding that the Smith Act did not inherently violate the first Amendment and other provisions of the Bill of Rights. The conspiracy of Dennis and his associates to organize the Communist Party and teach and advocate the overthrow of the government of the United States by force and violence created a ‘clear and present danger’. The dictum in Dennis case is indicative of the times when the Courts in United States had capitulated to the frenzy of fear of communism generated in the post Second world War period specially between 1945 and 1960. This environment of fear was fully exploited by bigots like Senator McCarthy at that time to victimize their opponents in the cold war against communism.
The internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry and their exclusionary orders by the military authorities during the Second World War are indicative of the fear and anxiety of the Americans under the strain of war and the American Courts were no exception under such trying circumstances. On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt issued an executive order authorizing the Secretary of War and the military Commanders to take steps to enforce compliance with the restrictions applicable to military areas. The Congress passed legislation on March 21, 1942 that substantially embodied the provisions of the President’s sweeping executive order. On May 3, 1942, General De Witt issued Civilian Exclusion Order No.34 which provided that “All persons of Japanese ancestry, both alien or non-alien, be excluded from….. military Area No.1”, which was described as containing the coastal area of northern California around San Francisco. Korematsu, an American citizen of Japanese ancestry, was convicted for violating the Exclusion Order No.34 and his conviction was upheld by the Federal Circuit Court. He petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in bold and provocative terms reproduced as under:
“Can a loyal American citizen be branded a criminal under the provisions of Public Law No.503 of the Act of March 21, 1942, for resisting military letters de cachet, issued in an area free from martial rule, which commanded his seizure, removal from his home, detention in a stockade, banishment from a state-embracing military department, and final imprisonment in a concentration camp, all without trial and without accusation of crime being brought against him.”
The Supreme Court in “Korematsu v. United States” [323 U.S. 214 (1944)] upheld the conviction and stress of war on the American jurisprudence is obvious from the following extracts of the judgment:
“True, exclusion from the area in which one’s home is located is a far greater deprivation than constant confinement to the home from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. Nothing short of apprehension by the proper military authorities of the gravest imminent danger to the public safety can constitutionally justify either. But exclusion from a threatened area, no less than curfew, has a definite and close relationship to the prevention of espionage and sabotage.
“Like curfew, exclusion of those of Japanese origin was deemed necessary because of the presence of an unascertained number of disloyal members of the group, most of whom we have no doubt were loyal to this country. It was because we could not reject the finding of the military authorities that it was impossible to bring about an immediate segregation of the disloyal from the loyal that we sustained the validity of the curfew order as applying to the whole group. In the instant case, temporary exclusion of the entire group was rested by the military on the same ground. The judgment that exclusion of the whole group was for the same reason a military imperative answers the contention that the exclusion was in the nature of group punishment based on antagonism to those of Japanese origin.
“We uphold the exclusion order as of the time it was made and when the petitioner violated it….. In doing so, we are not unmindful of the hardships imposed by it upon a large group of American citizens….. But hardships are part of war, and war is an aggregation of hardships. All citizens alike, both in and out of uniform, feel the impact of war in greater or lesser measure. Citizenship has its responsibilities as well as its privileges, and in time of war burden is always heavier. Compulsory exclusion of large group of citizens from their homes, except under circumstances of direct emergency and peril, is inconsistent without basic governmental institutions. But when under conditions of modern warfare our shores are threatened by hostile forces, the power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger.”
The Korematsu case manifests extremely perverse legal formulation providing for punishment of all members of a group because some of them might be involved in undesirable activities. This case has been a major embarrassment to all branches of Government of the United States after the Second World War and some of the innocent victims who suffered internment in the concentration camps have been compensated in 1990s (after about fifty years or so). However, the rationale in Korematsu case has once again came alive in the recent treatment of suspected class of aliens. Can the affected persons expect a verdict different from Korematsu case from the American Courts in the environment that exists today in the United States? It would be highly unlikely.
From the study of the above mentioned cases decided during the times of war, extreme anxiety or national fear and prejudice, it is evident that all branches of American Government including the courts wilt under such trying times. The American psyche is susceptible to fears and prejudices; whether or not they are product of internal economic compulsions like slavery or communism; or external threat like war or internal commotion. Once such fears get into the national psyche, all branches of Government including the judiciary bend their rules and misconstrue their own settled doctrines to justify breach of human rights and civil liberties. The veneer of liberalism gets rubbed off in such difficult times and exceptions are created to the established legal principles and new legal doctrines are advanced to undermine the human rights and civil liberties at the alter of national danger. The bitter truth about the history of American jurisprudence is that the Courts in times of war and internal commotion fall in line with the policies of the Administration and the Congress, which policies are dictated by fears and prejudices. In this perspective the aliens labouring under the discriminating policies of the Bush Administration should not expect relief or redress from the American Courts particularly in these times when the Administration has whipped up frenzy in the name of ‘war on terrorism’ against Muslim residents. The Muslims (whether or not residents in the U.S.A.) are victims of the hostile feeling created by sentiments of fears and prejudices amongst the Americans. The American Courts are no exception to these sentiments.
………………………..
Friday, September 24, 2010
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Another "Our Own War" for Pakistan
Dr. Umar Khan
khanmomar@yahoo.com
Dr. Khan heads a Lahore based Think Tank.
3-9-09
Another “Own War” for Pakistan
"We will know that we have succeeded when everything the public believes is false." William Casey. Director of CIA, 81-87
Walking on the lush green lawns during his first visit to the US our newly elected PM Yousaf Raza Gillani said more than once “It is our own war”. He was having difficulty articulating it probably due to inadequate command of the language despite practicing but apparently he showed his intent and compliance, a bit like homework of a schoolboy. The occasion and the timing of this pledge clearly indicated that it was meant for the American audience and probably was a prerequisite for the office he had recently assumed.
Forcing other nations into unnecessary wars is neither new nor reserved for underdeveloped and weak countries; interestingly US has been a victim of this intrigue repeatedly despite its apparent strength.
Woodrow Wilson won his reelection on the popular slogan “He kept us out of World War 1”. Within 45 days of assuming office he declared war on Germany giving a cocktail of strange reasons like drowning of a British ship Lusitania a few years back and some obscure telegram called Zimmerman’s which was reported by the British but never authenticated. It took Wilson another 10 months to formally state his reasons for jumping in the conflict he prided in avoiding with his famous 14 points making “world safe for democracy”. Propaganda cell called Committee for Public Information was created under George Creed and all those opposing the war were harassed mercilessly. In the process he got 120 thousand Americans killed and a quarter million wounded. It ended in the strange and unfair Treaty of Versailles clearing way for ultranationalists like Nazis in Germany.
Average American was manipulated into fighting a European war but never believed the stated reasons and when Europe started getting belligerent in the thirties took precautions against coercion. Nye commission was formed to look for reasons US fought the first world war and Neutrality Acts enacted in 1934, 35 and 36 to keep US out of the imminent European war. From 1934 to 1936, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota held a series of Senate investigations into the munitions industry and how they may have used their political influence to encourage the US to enter World War I so that they could reap profits by selling war material to the US government. Nye called these industries, "merchants of death." He was especially critical of Du Pont Corporation, and other large chemical and munitions dealers, claiming they were willing to see American soldiers sacrificed in war in order to make larger profits from sales.
The American public was fully aware that despite of the fact that Roosevelt won the 1940 election of the slogan of keeping US out of war, he will ultimately heed to the demands of the hidden hand and jump into it. According to the Gallop survey held in April 41, 83% voted against US involvement and national heroes like Lindbergh fighting hard, the US had actually entered the war with passing the Lend Lease Act in April 1941 financing and supporting the British and their Allies. Fully involved in the war unofficially, now Roosevelt was just looking for an excuse to declare war making provocations of all kind against Germany and Japan including naval blockades. Nicholson Baker elaborates how Churchill coerced Roosevelt in his book “The Human Smoke”. Unable to cite any believable reason to jump in the war impression was created that the sleeping giant was forced into it, a reason no student of history even takes seriously. Later the Axis were effectively demonized, with great help from the fascists to the extent that questioning America’s involvement in the European conflict became a taboo. Another 300 thousand Americans died in this war.
Manufacturing consent has become an advanced science with the help of development of behavioral sciences and the media. It has become an effective tool in the hands of the powerful interested in manipulating people using it on us ruthlessly.
Pakistan gained independence on 14th August 1947 and immediately started fighting hot and cold wars. We started war against communism and in 1947 imprisoned and harassed many local communists and socialists. Great names like Sahir Ludhianvi and Zaheer Kashmiri fled in different ways secretly as we were fighting against the communists labeled as antistate. Then the cold war started and we became stalwarts for the democratic world while living under martial law. We joined treaties, gave bases and helped any other way we could.
Then came the First Afghan War and Gen Zia very effectively sold it to the nation as “Our own war” suppressing voices of dissent ruthlessly. Fighting the Soviets was effectively made a duty of every Muslim and still we find important people arguing that Zia used US for our war. Interestingly in this war USSR lost but we didn’t win, as the winner was the US which became the lone unchallenged superpower. We on the other hand were left to pay the debts incurred during that war along with a host of problems it created.
Despite its lack of scruples US has been honest about its foreign policy openly declaring that it is based on self interests. If we have been harboring some strange romantic friendship ideas more befitting movies then it is our own fault. I remember during the mid nineties when everyone in Pakistan was sore for being abandoned a lady member of some think tank visited Pakistan and met the media in the American centre. After she was barraged by complains of abandonment by the Lahori journalists she replied curtly, “So what? You got the price you asked for, for your service”.
Coming to the current “Our War”, we didn’t have much of terror or suicide bombings until 2003 when we started this war against terrorism. After years of fighting we managed to finally bring it to our main cities again making it a taboo to question its wisdom. Still I dare.
Thousands of our soldiers have died along with many more civilians. Our sovereignty is ridiculed everyday with foreign forces on a rampage with deadly drones. We are killing our own people every day from land and air. Terrorism has increased since we started fighting it oblivious to the fact that the actual motives of the west might not be what they declare. We started military operations in Swat and now we might do it in Waziristan again, again on American prompting. After that there are indications that we might bring these military operations to Southern Punjab also. What after South Punjab, maybe Lahore and the other parts of Punjab, well I see no end in sight.
Due to our military operations in Swat and tribal areas there were millions of refugees and displaced persons and if we comply with the demands of further increasing the operation we might have tens of millions more. It can cause a total havoc to the country. In our earlier “Our War” imposed by the imperialists, we worked hard to manufacture jehadis and are now reaping its deadly yield. We must focus on the possible results and reactions of aerial and artillery bombings on our own people with strong traditions of revenge. Bombs are brutal, killing everyone indiscriminately whoever happens to be nearby and even the occupying Indians do not use them in Kashmir, whom we never miss to criticize.
This war on terror although gifted to us by the foreign powers may have become an absolute necessity for us. In our last “Own War” we did make many Frankenstein Monsters without giving a second thought to how to handle them. This time we must fight to the minimum if at all necessary but with our objectives stated without outside interference. We must remain fully aware of the fact that they might like to entangle us with violence trying to make their occupation of Afghanistan easier. We must remain fully cognizant of the fact that occupying powers can get a thousand Pakistanis killed to save a few of their own. We have to start taking our own decisions, especially about war.
A bit of research about the techniques used by foreign powers making us fight should also be beneficial. They have absolute control over the media which they use ruthlessly. They influence the local influential groups including the media, mullah and military. Benefitting a few top people personally in different ways the consent to fight and kill is finally manufactured.
Cognizant of the risk of being labeled as conspiracy theorist, I would like to quote Charles Colton who warned that often in courts and in cabinets, there are two things going on together,--a main plot and an under-plot; and he that understands only one of them will, in all probability, be the dupe of both. A mistress may rule a monarch, but some obscure favorite may rule the mistress. We might be well advised to form a commission to investigate how we got ourselves into perpetual foreign wars and how much price we paid. At the same time figuring out individuals and institutions benefitting from these conflicts. We should also guard our interests against the media of foreign powers which they wrongly label as independent. How can any sane person trust the media which argues that by dropping nuclear bomb Japanese lives were saved. An absolute insult to intelligence.
Wars are the messiest, expensive and destructive indulgence a nation can get into and we have had more than our share. We have followed the dictates of US like speechless lackeys for too long. Naturally we got all the inevitable rewards they bring including anarchy, de stability and poverty along with others. Although we were pushed in most of these wars still we do not have any right to complain as eventually we complied. Once we understand the mechanics used to put us through all this we shall be better placed to guard against. Let us sign a no war pact not with any other nation but with ourselves committing that we will not fight anyone else’s war again. Still if someone is psychologically addicted to wars he can be given the task to wage war against poverty, war against illiteracy, war against disease, war against ignorance; the list goes on and on
khanmomar@yahoo.com
khanmomar@yahoo.com
Dr. Khan heads a Lahore based Think Tank.
3-9-09
Another “Own War” for Pakistan
"We will know that we have succeeded when everything the public believes is false." William Casey. Director of CIA, 81-87
Walking on the lush green lawns during his first visit to the US our newly elected PM Yousaf Raza Gillani said more than once “It is our own war”. He was having difficulty articulating it probably due to inadequate command of the language despite practicing but apparently he showed his intent and compliance, a bit like homework of a schoolboy. The occasion and the timing of this pledge clearly indicated that it was meant for the American audience and probably was a prerequisite for the office he had recently assumed.
Forcing other nations into unnecessary wars is neither new nor reserved for underdeveloped and weak countries; interestingly US has been a victim of this intrigue repeatedly despite its apparent strength.
Woodrow Wilson won his reelection on the popular slogan “He kept us out of World War 1”. Within 45 days of assuming office he declared war on Germany giving a cocktail of strange reasons like drowning of a British ship Lusitania a few years back and some obscure telegram called Zimmerman’s which was reported by the British but never authenticated. It took Wilson another 10 months to formally state his reasons for jumping in the conflict he prided in avoiding with his famous 14 points making “world safe for democracy”. Propaganda cell called Committee for Public Information was created under George Creed and all those opposing the war were harassed mercilessly. In the process he got 120 thousand Americans killed and a quarter million wounded. It ended in the strange and unfair Treaty of Versailles clearing way for ultranationalists like Nazis in Germany.
Average American was manipulated into fighting a European war but never believed the stated reasons and when Europe started getting belligerent in the thirties took precautions against coercion. Nye commission was formed to look for reasons US fought the first world war and Neutrality Acts enacted in 1934, 35 and 36 to keep US out of the imminent European war. From 1934 to 1936, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota held a series of Senate investigations into the munitions industry and how they may have used their political influence to encourage the US to enter World War I so that they could reap profits by selling war material to the US government. Nye called these industries, "merchants of death." He was especially critical of Du Pont Corporation, and other large chemical and munitions dealers, claiming they were willing to see American soldiers sacrificed in war in order to make larger profits from sales.
The American public was fully aware that despite of the fact that Roosevelt won the 1940 election of the slogan of keeping US out of war, he will ultimately heed to the demands of the hidden hand and jump into it. According to the Gallop survey held in April 41, 83% voted against US involvement and national heroes like Lindbergh fighting hard, the US had actually entered the war with passing the Lend Lease Act in April 1941 financing and supporting the British and their Allies. Fully involved in the war unofficially, now Roosevelt was just looking for an excuse to declare war making provocations of all kind against Germany and Japan including naval blockades. Nicholson Baker elaborates how Churchill coerced Roosevelt in his book “The Human Smoke”. Unable to cite any believable reason to jump in the war impression was created that the sleeping giant was forced into it, a reason no student of history even takes seriously. Later the Axis were effectively demonized, with great help from the fascists to the extent that questioning America’s involvement in the European conflict became a taboo. Another 300 thousand Americans died in this war.
Manufacturing consent has become an advanced science with the help of development of behavioral sciences and the media. It has become an effective tool in the hands of the powerful interested in manipulating people using it on us ruthlessly.
Pakistan gained independence on 14th August 1947 and immediately started fighting hot and cold wars. We started war against communism and in 1947 imprisoned and harassed many local communists and socialists. Great names like Sahir Ludhianvi and Zaheer Kashmiri fled in different ways secretly as we were fighting against the communists labeled as antistate. Then the cold war started and we became stalwarts for the democratic world while living under martial law. We joined treaties, gave bases and helped any other way we could.
Then came the First Afghan War and Gen Zia very effectively sold it to the nation as “Our own war” suppressing voices of dissent ruthlessly. Fighting the Soviets was effectively made a duty of every Muslim and still we find important people arguing that Zia used US for our war. Interestingly in this war USSR lost but we didn’t win, as the winner was the US which became the lone unchallenged superpower. We on the other hand were left to pay the debts incurred during that war along with a host of problems it created.
Despite its lack of scruples US has been honest about its foreign policy openly declaring that it is based on self interests. If we have been harboring some strange romantic friendship ideas more befitting movies then it is our own fault. I remember during the mid nineties when everyone in Pakistan was sore for being abandoned a lady member of some think tank visited Pakistan and met the media in the American centre. After she was barraged by complains of abandonment by the Lahori journalists she replied curtly, “So what? You got the price you asked for, for your service”.
Coming to the current “Our War”, we didn’t have much of terror or suicide bombings until 2003 when we started this war against terrorism. After years of fighting we managed to finally bring it to our main cities again making it a taboo to question its wisdom. Still I dare.
Thousands of our soldiers have died along with many more civilians. Our sovereignty is ridiculed everyday with foreign forces on a rampage with deadly drones. We are killing our own people every day from land and air. Terrorism has increased since we started fighting it oblivious to the fact that the actual motives of the west might not be what they declare. We started military operations in Swat and now we might do it in Waziristan again, again on American prompting. After that there are indications that we might bring these military operations to Southern Punjab also. What after South Punjab, maybe Lahore and the other parts of Punjab, well I see no end in sight.
Due to our military operations in Swat and tribal areas there were millions of refugees and displaced persons and if we comply with the demands of further increasing the operation we might have tens of millions more. It can cause a total havoc to the country. In our earlier “Our War” imposed by the imperialists, we worked hard to manufacture jehadis and are now reaping its deadly yield. We must focus on the possible results and reactions of aerial and artillery bombings on our own people with strong traditions of revenge. Bombs are brutal, killing everyone indiscriminately whoever happens to be nearby and even the occupying Indians do not use them in Kashmir, whom we never miss to criticize.
This war on terror although gifted to us by the foreign powers may have become an absolute necessity for us. In our last “Own War” we did make many Frankenstein Monsters without giving a second thought to how to handle them. This time we must fight to the minimum if at all necessary but with our objectives stated without outside interference. We must remain fully aware of the fact that they might like to entangle us with violence trying to make their occupation of Afghanistan easier. We must remain fully cognizant of the fact that occupying powers can get a thousand Pakistanis killed to save a few of their own. We have to start taking our own decisions, especially about war.
A bit of research about the techniques used by foreign powers making us fight should also be beneficial. They have absolute control over the media which they use ruthlessly. They influence the local influential groups including the media, mullah and military. Benefitting a few top people personally in different ways the consent to fight and kill is finally manufactured.
Cognizant of the risk of being labeled as conspiracy theorist, I would like to quote Charles Colton who warned that often in courts and in cabinets, there are two things going on together,--a main plot and an under-plot; and he that understands only one of them will, in all probability, be the dupe of both. A mistress may rule a monarch, but some obscure favorite may rule the mistress. We might be well advised to form a commission to investigate how we got ourselves into perpetual foreign wars and how much price we paid. At the same time figuring out individuals and institutions benefitting from these conflicts. We should also guard our interests against the media of foreign powers which they wrongly label as independent. How can any sane person trust the media which argues that by dropping nuclear bomb Japanese lives were saved. An absolute insult to intelligence.
Wars are the messiest, expensive and destructive indulgence a nation can get into and we have had more than our share. We have followed the dictates of US like speechless lackeys for too long. Naturally we got all the inevitable rewards they bring including anarchy, de stability and poverty along with others. Although we were pushed in most of these wars still we do not have any right to complain as eventually we complied. Once we understand the mechanics used to put us through all this we shall be better placed to guard against. Let us sign a no war pact not with any other nation but with ourselves committing that we will not fight anyone else’s war again. Still if someone is psychologically addicted to wars he can be given the task to wage war against poverty, war against illiteracy, war against disease, war against ignorance; the list goes on and on
khanmomar@yahoo.com
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
General Zia's Legacy
Dr. Umar Khan
khanmomar@yahoo.com
Dr. Khan heads a Lahore based Think Tank.
14-7-08
General Zia’s Legacy
20 years back this day we lost Gen Zia and many senior officials in a tragic plane crash. For good or bad, General Zia and his 11 years rule has done more to shape the current Pakistan than anyone else. His rule lasted roughly 20% of the life of the country directly and around the same indirectly, touching all aspects of the country and its society. Despite being an unelected ruler frequently displaying ruthlessness of the highest degree he still has a more than substantial following which speaks volumes of his skills and tactfulness although he has many critics too whose numbers are constantly increasing. His emotionally charged and highly attended funeral was spectacular befitting a national hero and not that of an autocrat. Nearly all aspects of his legacy have been enumerated and thoroughly discussed but the most important and everlasting aspect has always been somehow ignored. By overthrowing popular PM Bhutto and hanging him on foreign instigation, he sent a dreadful message to the Pakistani politicians and the civil society at large; this is what happens to those who dare to defy the US.
His admirers credit him for winning the Afghan war and breaking of the Soviet Union. Although time has proven that it was not a Pakistani war but Zia and his coterie succeeded in making Pakistanis fight and pay for an American war and still there are people equating Zia with the great Muslim Generals of history. He is also attributed for encouraging Islamic values and norms which were mostly restricted to rituals conveniently overlooking the human aspects of religion requiring efforts and sacrifices by the rulers. Still at the end of the Zia era the attendance of mosques had improved and the attire of women had certainly gained in modesty.
His critics blame him for most ills we face today. He is held responsible for the advent of drugs, crime, violence, intolerance, extremism and enormous corruption in Pakistan. These vices did exist before him but increased exponentially under his rule, which many relate to his covert patronage. He is also blamed for subverting the constitution and democracy in Pakistan but somehow he has not been openly blamed for promoting foreign interference by making an example out of a popular PM on its tutelage.
Although there are rumblings that US had a role in bringing Bhutto to power but they soon started having problems. This break became embarrassingly evident in the summer of 1974 when much trumpeted trip to US was rudely cancelled by President Nixon while Bhutto was still in Europe on his way to Washington. This breakup was caused by three events US as a world power considered against its interests. First was the revival of the Islamic Conference criticizing Israel and the second was mobilization of the third world against the imperialists and the third was the use of oil as a weapon in international relations; and Bhutto was instrumental in all. Despite enormous stress in the relations the point of no return hadn’t arrived yet.
The final break in Bhutto's relations with the US occurred when his nuclear ambitions were exposed. US just could not allow nuclear weapons in the hands of a Muslim country so labeled it “Islamic Bomb” although the Indian bomb was not branded Hindu and the Israeli not called Jewish. French were forced to break the nuclear deal with Pakistan and Kissinger visited Pakistan in 1976 persuading Bhutto to drop his nuclear ambitions. When he failed to convince Bhutto, Kissinger openly in a curt undiplomatic language threatened him of dire consequences. Despite his strengths Bhutto was certainly not a modest person and he presented the guest with a model resembling a bomb further infuriating him. According to many observers Bhutto’s fate was sealed that day.
Strange things started happening after that; sworn rivals united for elections, easily winnable elections were rigged and caught and then an effective protest with dubious financing was launched. Still Bhutto reached an agreement with the opposition but Zia took over at the last moment with the help of known CIA sympathizers. A strange legal battle occurred which even the perpetuators try to distance from and Bhutto was hanged by Zia fulfilling Kissinger’s prophecy, making him an example. Interestingly all his was done in the name of Islamic government with the help of institutions created to defend the constitution and sovereignty of the country.
This tragic death of Bhutto in the hands of Gen Zia has totally changed the direction of Pakistani politics. The days of romance of David defying the strong Goliath ended. Now no one even imagines disobeying or resisting US even at the expense of Pakistan. Musharraf's acceptance of all American demands on one call is a clear example of it. They weren’t expecting such pliability because probably they don’t adequately comprehend the fear a popular PMs murder has instilled in the Pakistani polity and society. It has effectively caused a race among the politicians and institutions in Pakistan to outdo each other serving the US interests. In today’s political wisdom, defying US is rated stupid and immature and hoping to achieve political offices without acquiring foreign approval naiveté. The complete political horizon is more pliable to foreign interests than any other country in the world; occasionally more than even the occupied ones which sporadically express displeasure upon political compulsions. Nothing of this sort has been witnessed here lately resulting in US interfering in political and other appointments regularly reaching the lowest inconsequential matters. In our current political government at least 4 federal ministers and 2 diplomats are known to be direct appointees of foreign powers.
Unfortunately the story of foreign interference in our matters doesn’t end with major powers as a host of smaller nations routinely and openly meddle in our domestic matters. Our politicians and other political players routinely go abroad to solve local problems with their help without caring to conceal it. This has certainly affected Pakistan’s standing and respect across the world and our eternal wish to be treated equal with the Indians has become a joke. This trend is certainly undesirable but understandable as countries that cant stand for themselves always find themselves rolling.
It must be appreciated that other countries always keep their interests foremost in international relations. Whenever they interfere in our matters it is never out of love for us but for their own interests and by allowing them to meddle in our matters basically we are compromising Pakistan’s interests. Lets accept the hard fact that the ministers appointed by the foreign powers will naturally serve them mostly at the expense of Pakistan. Having ambassadors appointed by others leaves Pakistan absolutely defenseless in today’s callous world where no one is protecting the interests of poor Pakistanis. This sorry state of affairs has left Pakistan in the only condition it can lead to, a very pathetic one. And Gen Zia lives on if not physically at least spiritually.
This most lasting and damaging legacy of Gen Zia must be curtailed. Blaming foreign powers for our problems wont solve the issue so we must avoid it solving our tribulations ourselves. For this we will have to take our reins in our own hands. We must never let any usurper capture our country and its future at any pretext whatsoever and put us in intractable problems. To ensure it, we might have to make an example of a few collaborators like Zia made of Bhutto and bring our institutions back to Pakistani control. We cant bring Bhutto back, or right the wrong done to him, but we can certainly make him more comfortable in his grave by achieving what he strived hard for by making Pakistan a real sovereign country like most of the world by freeing it from the unhealthy and uncontrolled foreign interference. Only then we will be able to free our rulers to serve us and not foreign masters. We must achieve it, as anything else is absolutely unaffordable. Lets finally burry Gen Zia in spirit by becoming our own masters.
Khanmomar@yahoo.com
khanmomar@yahoo.com
Dr. Khan heads a Lahore based Think Tank.
14-7-08
General Zia’s Legacy
20 years back this day we lost Gen Zia and many senior officials in a tragic plane crash. For good or bad, General Zia and his 11 years rule has done more to shape the current Pakistan than anyone else. His rule lasted roughly 20% of the life of the country directly and around the same indirectly, touching all aspects of the country and its society. Despite being an unelected ruler frequently displaying ruthlessness of the highest degree he still has a more than substantial following which speaks volumes of his skills and tactfulness although he has many critics too whose numbers are constantly increasing. His emotionally charged and highly attended funeral was spectacular befitting a national hero and not that of an autocrat. Nearly all aspects of his legacy have been enumerated and thoroughly discussed but the most important and everlasting aspect has always been somehow ignored. By overthrowing popular PM Bhutto and hanging him on foreign instigation, he sent a dreadful message to the Pakistani politicians and the civil society at large; this is what happens to those who dare to defy the US.
His admirers credit him for winning the Afghan war and breaking of the Soviet Union. Although time has proven that it was not a Pakistani war but Zia and his coterie succeeded in making Pakistanis fight and pay for an American war and still there are people equating Zia with the great Muslim Generals of history. He is also attributed for encouraging Islamic values and norms which were mostly restricted to rituals conveniently overlooking the human aspects of religion requiring efforts and sacrifices by the rulers. Still at the end of the Zia era the attendance of mosques had improved and the attire of women had certainly gained in modesty.
His critics blame him for most ills we face today. He is held responsible for the advent of drugs, crime, violence, intolerance, extremism and enormous corruption in Pakistan. These vices did exist before him but increased exponentially under his rule, which many relate to his covert patronage. He is also blamed for subverting the constitution and democracy in Pakistan but somehow he has not been openly blamed for promoting foreign interference by making an example out of a popular PM on its tutelage.
Although there are rumblings that US had a role in bringing Bhutto to power but they soon started having problems. This break became embarrassingly evident in the summer of 1974 when much trumpeted trip to US was rudely cancelled by President Nixon while Bhutto was still in Europe on his way to Washington. This breakup was caused by three events US as a world power considered against its interests. First was the revival of the Islamic Conference criticizing Israel and the second was mobilization of the third world against the imperialists and the third was the use of oil as a weapon in international relations; and Bhutto was instrumental in all. Despite enormous stress in the relations the point of no return hadn’t arrived yet.
The final break in Bhutto's relations with the US occurred when his nuclear ambitions were exposed. US just could not allow nuclear weapons in the hands of a Muslim country so labeled it “Islamic Bomb” although the Indian bomb was not branded Hindu and the Israeli not called Jewish. French were forced to break the nuclear deal with Pakistan and Kissinger visited Pakistan in 1976 persuading Bhutto to drop his nuclear ambitions. When he failed to convince Bhutto, Kissinger openly in a curt undiplomatic language threatened him of dire consequences. Despite his strengths Bhutto was certainly not a modest person and he presented the guest with a model resembling a bomb further infuriating him. According to many observers Bhutto’s fate was sealed that day.
Strange things started happening after that; sworn rivals united for elections, easily winnable elections were rigged and caught and then an effective protest with dubious financing was launched. Still Bhutto reached an agreement with the opposition but Zia took over at the last moment with the help of known CIA sympathizers. A strange legal battle occurred which even the perpetuators try to distance from and Bhutto was hanged by Zia fulfilling Kissinger’s prophecy, making him an example. Interestingly all his was done in the name of Islamic government with the help of institutions created to defend the constitution and sovereignty of the country.
This tragic death of Bhutto in the hands of Gen Zia has totally changed the direction of Pakistani politics. The days of romance of David defying the strong Goliath ended. Now no one even imagines disobeying or resisting US even at the expense of Pakistan. Musharraf's acceptance of all American demands on one call is a clear example of it. They weren’t expecting such pliability because probably they don’t adequately comprehend the fear a popular PMs murder has instilled in the Pakistani polity and society. It has effectively caused a race among the politicians and institutions in Pakistan to outdo each other serving the US interests. In today’s political wisdom, defying US is rated stupid and immature and hoping to achieve political offices without acquiring foreign approval naiveté. The complete political horizon is more pliable to foreign interests than any other country in the world; occasionally more than even the occupied ones which sporadically express displeasure upon political compulsions. Nothing of this sort has been witnessed here lately resulting in US interfering in political and other appointments regularly reaching the lowest inconsequential matters. In our current political government at least 4 federal ministers and 2 diplomats are known to be direct appointees of foreign powers.
Unfortunately the story of foreign interference in our matters doesn’t end with major powers as a host of smaller nations routinely and openly meddle in our domestic matters. Our politicians and other political players routinely go abroad to solve local problems with their help without caring to conceal it. This has certainly affected Pakistan’s standing and respect across the world and our eternal wish to be treated equal with the Indians has become a joke. This trend is certainly undesirable but understandable as countries that cant stand for themselves always find themselves rolling.
It must be appreciated that other countries always keep their interests foremost in international relations. Whenever they interfere in our matters it is never out of love for us but for their own interests and by allowing them to meddle in our matters basically we are compromising Pakistan’s interests. Lets accept the hard fact that the ministers appointed by the foreign powers will naturally serve them mostly at the expense of Pakistan. Having ambassadors appointed by others leaves Pakistan absolutely defenseless in today’s callous world where no one is protecting the interests of poor Pakistanis. This sorry state of affairs has left Pakistan in the only condition it can lead to, a very pathetic one. And Gen Zia lives on if not physically at least spiritually.
This most lasting and damaging legacy of Gen Zia must be curtailed. Blaming foreign powers for our problems wont solve the issue so we must avoid it solving our tribulations ourselves. For this we will have to take our reins in our own hands. We must never let any usurper capture our country and its future at any pretext whatsoever and put us in intractable problems. To ensure it, we might have to make an example of a few collaborators like Zia made of Bhutto and bring our institutions back to Pakistani control. We cant bring Bhutto back, or right the wrong done to him, but we can certainly make him more comfortable in his grave by achieving what he strived hard for by making Pakistan a real sovereign country like most of the world by freeing it from the unhealthy and uncontrolled foreign interference. Only then we will be able to free our rulers to serve us and not foreign masters. We must achieve it, as anything else is absolutely unaffordable. Lets finally burry Gen Zia in spirit by becoming our own masters.
Khanmomar@yahoo.com
Zardari's "Political Statements"
Dr. Umar Khan
khanmomar@yahoo.com
Dr. Khan heads a Lahore based Think Tank.
03-05-08
Zardari’s options and the “Political statement”
Pakistan People’s Party Co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari on Monday went back on his word about judges’ restoration in 30 days, agreed in the Murree Declaration. Talking to a private TV channel, he said what he along with Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Nawaz Sharif announced in Murree was just a political statement and it could be interpreted in different ways. He might be suggesting that political statements are based on political expediencies and conveniences, and are disposable. Putting it simply his statement might be construed as the kind of confession about conducting politics that borders on dishonesty or outright deceit. The aspiring future military dictators must be delighted to read the statement as Mr. Zardari might be disseminating the message and image of politics and politicians generals always do, i.e., maligning the politicians and politics.
This is not the first time Mr. Zardari has tried to evade the issue of reinstatement of the judges deposed on that fateful night of 3rd November when the constitution of Pakistan was desecrated by a government servant under oath to protect it. That night Pakistan was ridiculed throughout the world and it lost much of the goodwill it earned after 9/11. The public reaction to this unlawful act was so intense that all politicians had to support the deposed judges including Zardari but they are finding fulfillment of their promises difficult. Some PPP sympathizers remind us about the past of some deposed judges and their oath taking under another PCO and at other times they find hard to forgive them for Zardari’s long stay in jail without bail. Surprisingly they are ready to forgive judges taking 2 oaths under PCOs but not one. They are ready to forgive the people who put him in jail but not the judges who were working with a loaded gun pointing on their heads. In the name of reconciliation he is again ready to forgive people implicated in a series of massacres, even the very recent ones, but not the deposed judges. At times he appears to be defending the indefensible and appear like supporting usurpers at all costs.
To understand these obvious discrepancies in the attitude of Mr. Zardari we have to analyze the situation rationally taking a detached view to really comprehend the options available to him and his limitations.
The actual issue is that Gen Musharraf well aware of his inability to contest Presidential elections legally committed a blatant unconstitutional act. Fearing the non-pliability of the CJ and other judges he sacked them en masse. Now the PPP made a political deal with the General who promised to share power with the party. So here the major beneficiary is the PPP, which also has the most to lose. The fee it demanded for providing public support to a very unpopular General was immunity from the dozens of cases some of which were close to being decided. This also explains why our military dictators are quick to send cases against politicians to the courts but reluctant to get decisions, as pending cases with proof’s make the politicians pliable and hence useful for them. General Musharraf provided this immunity in the name of National Reconciliation Ordinance and then helped in letting him contest elections despite being a non-graduate.
The major issue here is that if the illegal and seditious actions of 3rd November are reversed it will cause 2 major problems; 1. Presidential election of Musharraf would be annulled, as it is too obvious and 2. The NRO might be negated exposing Mr. Zardari who can afford neither. This makes it quite understandable why he is avoiding the judge’s issue despite the enormous public pressure. Sometimes he wants to reduce the term, at other times he wants to curtail the powers of the CJ to constitute benches and wants to keep the PCO judges to create a split. Apparently he is trying to protect the general president from the law of the country. Chances are that he will continue to sabotage the struggle for the restoration of judiciary without declaring it.
Although the above-mentioned pressures are enough to explain his reluctance about reinstatement of the judiciary, the matter gets even more complicated with the obvious foreign involvement. The simple fact that our politicians are traveling so much and holding discussions abroad is a clear sign that our matters are decided there. US was the guarantor of the deal between the PPP and Musharraf and it still finds him useful. Then there are a host of other smaller countries enjoying considerable power in Pakistani politics playing their role making the people of Pakistan the most unimportant factor. So much for our national sovereignty.
Can we realistically expect from a politician carrying a heavy baggage of his past to defy the powers? Can he stand up to the people who have the proofs against him for corruption? Can he disregard the demands of foreign powers well aware of his bank accounts and assets? The answers are certainly not simple.
Maybe Zardari just doesn’t have the options the nation is expecting from him as his hands appear to be tied mercilessly. Despite this apparently bleak situation the prospects aren’t that desolate and the brightest ray of hope is the recent public awakening and the ending of chronic apathy of the civil society. This might be the most hopeful thing to happen to Pakistan since a long time. The relatively fair elections of 2008, or the recent retreat of Gen Musharraf weren’t due to someone’s benevolence but the direct consequence of the check on the dictator created by the lawyers, media and the civil society. We don’t need to be grateful to anyone except Allah for these gains as we earned them and paid a heavy price for them. Our hope lies in creating sufficient public pressure on Zardari, which neutralizes the different opposing pressures.
Leaders unlike intellectuals don’t initiate change rather ride the waves of public opinion. Zardari must be convinced of the political dangers associated with siding with a constitution breaking general. If he is sufficiently persuaded of the resolve of the civil society not to surrender to the usurpers again, he might free himself of the numerous shackles around him. After all even the foreign players deal with him because they perceive he can affect the public opinion in Pakistan due to the Bhutto name he has somehow inherited. If he loses the public support, he will lose his utility for the foreign powers making him irrelevant and vulnerable. The nation should provide him the indemnity the General did freeing him of the worries of his past. Pakistanis are very magnanimous and forgiving and they have shown their support for the PPP and its leadership on February 18th. By reinstating the deposed judge’s side Zardari might be risking his government and even his personal liberty and reputation. We must emancipate him by supporting and protecting him to enable him to make independent judgments. By doing this we would be protecting our liberty the dictators stole a long time back with the help of foreign powers.
Liberty is not a gift of God alone but a hard won achievement with the help of God, after all He helps only those who help themselves. The condition upon which God has given liberty to man is eternal vigilance and we must guard our hard earned liberty very jealously. We cannot afford to be complacent about it. No constitution, no court, no law can save liberty when it dies in the hearts and minds of men and women and we must never allow it to happen. We have been repeatedly used and abused by foreign powers with the help of local collaborating dictators and suffered very badly for it. The recent awakening of our civil society can and should be the strongest guard against this dreadful risk. The simple message of the civil society prevailing over the status quo forces representing the foreigners can solve most of our problems. We must continue our struggle and help Mr. Zardari fulfill his promise. If he still doesn’t, he runs the risk of Qleaging the PPP, ZABs party, the party representing the poor, the party that could not be destroyed by the atrocities of Zia. If that happens, it would be another tragedy of 16th December and 3rd November scale.
khanmomar@yahoo.com
Dr. Khan heads a Lahore based Think Tank.
03-05-08
Zardari’s options and the “Political statement”
Pakistan People’s Party Co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari on Monday went back on his word about judges’ restoration in 30 days, agreed in the Murree Declaration. Talking to a private TV channel, he said what he along with Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Nawaz Sharif announced in Murree was just a political statement and it could be interpreted in different ways. He might be suggesting that political statements are based on political expediencies and conveniences, and are disposable. Putting it simply his statement might be construed as the kind of confession about conducting politics that borders on dishonesty or outright deceit. The aspiring future military dictators must be delighted to read the statement as Mr. Zardari might be disseminating the message and image of politics and politicians generals always do, i.e., maligning the politicians and politics.
This is not the first time Mr. Zardari has tried to evade the issue of reinstatement of the judges deposed on that fateful night of 3rd November when the constitution of Pakistan was desecrated by a government servant under oath to protect it. That night Pakistan was ridiculed throughout the world and it lost much of the goodwill it earned after 9/11. The public reaction to this unlawful act was so intense that all politicians had to support the deposed judges including Zardari but they are finding fulfillment of their promises difficult. Some PPP sympathizers remind us about the past of some deposed judges and their oath taking under another PCO and at other times they find hard to forgive them for Zardari’s long stay in jail without bail. Surprisingly they are ready to forgive judges taking 2 oaths under PCOs but not one. They are ready to forgive the people who put him in jail but not the judges who were working with a loaded gun pointing on their heads. In the name of reconciliation he is again ready to forgive people implicated in a series of massacres, even the very recent ones, but not the deposed judges. At times he appears to be defending the indefensible and appear like supporting usurpers at all costs.
To understand these obvious discrepancies in the attitude of Mr. Zardari we have to analyze the situation rationally taking a detached view to really comprehend the options available to him and his limitations.
The actual issue is that Gen Musharraf well aware of his inability to contest Presidential elections legally committed a blatant unconstitutional act. Fearing the non-pliability of the CJ and other judges he sacked them en masse. Now the PPP made a political deal with the General who promised to share power with the party. So here the major beneficiary is the PPP, which also has the most to lose. The fee it demanded for providing public support to a very unpopular General was immunity from the dozens of cases some of which were close to being decided. This also explains why our military dictators are quick to send cases against politicians to the courts but reluctant to get decisions, as pending cases with proof’s make the politicians pliable and hence useful for them. General Musharraf provided this immunity in the name of National Reconciliation Ordinance and then helped in letting him contest elections despite being a non-graduate.
The major issue here is that if the illegal and seditious actions of 3rd November are reversed it will cause 2 major problems; 1. Presidential election of Musharraf would be annulled, as it is too obvious and 2. The NRO might be negated exposing Mr. Zardari who can afford neither. This makes it quite understandable why he is avoiding the judge’s issue despite the enormous public pressure. Sometimes he wants to reduce the term, at other times he wants to curtail the powers of the CJ to constitute benches and wants to keep the PCO judges to create a split. Apparently he is trying to protect the general president from the law of the country. Chances are that he will continue to sabotage the struggle for the restoration of judiciary without declaring it.
Although the above-mentioned pressures are enough to explain his reluctance about reinstatement of the judiciary, the matter gets even more complicated with the obvious foreign involvement. The simple fact that our politicians are traveling so much and holding discussions abroad is a clear sign that our matters are decided there. US was the guarantor of the deal between the PPP and Musharraf and it still finds him useful. Then there are a host of other smaller countries enjoying considerable power in Pakistani politics playing their role making the people of Pakistan the most unimportant factor. So much for our national sovereignty.
Can we realistically expect from a politician carrying a heavy baggage of his past to defy the powers? Can he stand up to the people who have the proofs against him for corruption? Can he disregard the demands of foreign powers well aware of his bank accounts and assets? The answers are certainly not simple.
Maybe Zardari just doesn’t have the options the nation is expecting from him as his hands appear to be tied mercilessly. Despite this apparently bleak situation the prospects aren’t that desolate and the brightest ray of hope is the recent public awakening and the ending of chronic apathy of the civil society. This might be the most hopeful thing to happen to Pakistan since a long time. The relatively fair elections of 2008, or the recent retreat of Gen Musharraf weren’t due to someone’s benevolence but the direct consequence of the check on the dictator created by the lawyers, media and the civil society. We don’t need to be grateful to anyone except Allah for these gains as we earned them and paid a heavy price for them. Our hope lies in creating sufficient public pressure on Zardari, which neutralizes the different opposing pressures.
Leaders unlike intellectuals don’t initiate change rather ride the waves of public opinion. Zardari must be convinced of the political dangers associated with siding with a constitution breaking general. If he is sufficiently persuaded of the resolve of the civil society not to surrender to the usurpers again, he might free himself of the numerous shackles around him. After all even the foreign players deal with him because they perceive he can affect the public opinion in Pakistan due to the Bhutto name he has somehow inherited. If he loses the public support, he will lose his utility for the foreign powers making him irrelevant and vulnerable. The nation should provide him the indemnity the General did freeing him of the worries of his past. Pakistanis are very magnanimous and forgiving and they have shown their support for the PPP and its leadership on February 18th. By reinstating the deposed judge’s side Zardari might be risking his government and even his personal liberty and reputation. We must emancipate him by supporting and protecting him to enable him to make independent judgments. By doing this we would be protecting our liberty the dictators stole a long time back with the help of foreign powers.
Liberty is not a gift of God alone but a hard won achievement with the help of God, after all He helps only those who help themselves. The condition upon which God has given liberty to man is eternal vigilance and we must guard our hard earned liberty very jealously. We cannot afford to be complacent about it. No constitution, no court, no law can save liberty when it dies in the hearts and minds of men and women and we must never allow it to happen. We have been repeatedly used and abused by foreign powers with the help of local collaborating dictators and suffered very badly for it. The recent awakening of our civil society can and should be the strongest guard against this dreadful risk. The simple message of the civil society prevailing over the status quo forces representing the foreigners can solve most of our problems. We must continue our struggle and help Mr. Zardari fulfill his promise. If he still doesn’t, he runs the risk of Qleaging the PPP, ZABs party, the party representing the poor, the party that could not be destroyed by the atrocities of Zia. If that happens, it would be another tragedy of 16th December and 3rd November scale.
Who will pay for this national uncertainty?
Dr. Umar Khan
khanmomar@yahoo.com
Dr. Khan heads a Lahore based Think Tank. 22-09-07
Who will pay for this national uncertainty?
Pakistan is going through very uncertain times where people are unsure of what future holds for them and their nation. Matters that can be predicted decades in advance in the civilized world are undecided and uncertain here. When will the presidential elections be held? Would government servants be allowed to contest? Which assemblies will vote? Will the opposition resign? How will the lawyers react? Will they succeed in holding big protests against the election commission? Will Gen Musharraf fulfill his promise of retiring his uniform? Will there be another emergency or martial law as repeatedly threatened? Will the civil society again tolerate it? Are we heading towards dangerous confrontation between the state and the civil society? Are we doomed towards a full-fledged civil war? These are some of the more troubling questions causing this confusion.
This uncertainty has resulted in a strange kind of anxiety evident on the faces of most Pakistanis. People seem frustrated and ready to fight on small pretexts we witness everyday on the roads. The nation as a whole seems to be unsure of its future and destiny again giving rise to depression and insecurity. People have stopped planning for their future and are mostly focusing on their day-to-day survival that has become an uphill struggle due to the shortages of wheat and other basic food items. Conspiracy theorists, who enjoy a certain amount of credibility in our society, are having a heyday with the latest theory that the government started the flour fiasco basically to distract the people from its plans of the upcoming presidential elections.
Uncertainty and unpredictability is a dangerous thing to have for a nation as it breeds insecurity of all kinds, personal and collective. It causes personal stress leading to depression on individual level and also on the collective level. Local investment is affected leading to stagnation of economy and foreign investors too stay away from uncertain and unpredictable countries. Capital, the shyest animal known runs away from uncertainty further sealing the fate of countries where uncertainty is rampant. All this results in a stale economy not creating new jobs further fueling the depression that further causes economic slow down. The capable people of a society, its most valuable asset, prefer not to raise its future generations in insecure environment and tend to migrate further spoiling the situation. This also damages the reputation of a country worldwide. Nations issue travel advisories against traveling to these countries and make travel from such country more and more difficult. The importers avoid placing orders and the shippers charge extra all at the cost of the nation. Unfortunately sounds a bit too familiar to the hapless Pakistanis.
Ultimately nations find getting out of this vicious cycle of uncertainty and economic depression extremely difficult. No wonder they take special pains to avoid such dangerous situations for the sake of their country and its future. So should we. What causes all uncertainty is all too obvious. We tolerated unelected regimes that got reckless with the nation for their own petty interests and left us to do the cleaning work.
The main issue exposing Pakistan to these dreadful risks is the wish of the rulers to keep Gen. Musharraf in power for another (at least) 5 years at any and all costs. Any and all excuses are being used. Constitution has been made a bit too pliable making it kind of a joke; the courts have been put under tremendous pressures of all kind, subtle and not so subtle. Strange legal experts are manipulating Law and internal cohesion of the country is at risk. All this is being done to let a serving Gen, Musharraf contest in the presidential elections, something unheard of in the civilized democratic world and that also from 5 years old assemblies who had elected him for one term previously also. No matter how many complicated arguments legal experts might give but no one in the whole world would be convinced of such an obvious anomaly.
After all why is he so much insistent on contesting in uniform and that also by the old assemblies? There must be something very attractive attached to it? Certainly one does not have to be a genius to see it. It is the force of the gun attached to the uniform, which makes getting votes easier. In such a scenario “free and fair” is the first causality as use of force converts free choice into coercion. Rulers seem to be convinced of their unpopularity so do not want to take a chance by letting the new assemblies vote. If the same privilege of contesting general elections in armed service is given to police, I am sure we will see an assembly consisting mostly of SHOs. Only the strongest and the most resolute would dare contest or vote against them.
According to most historians one of the major reasons for the Mughal decline was the uncertainty it caused after the deaths of emperors which was always followed by series of battles plunging the country into serious uncertainties and insecurity. Ultimately it became so weak that a trading company of a small nation far away conquered all of it. We have made a mockery of our country by playing strange cruel jokes repeatedly. No one in the world is convinced of the tricks we are trying to play. Modern world cant be persuaded that 2 and 2 makes 5 as no one would call a uniformed elections credible or democracy. Still if some foreign powers tolerate all this it would be for a very high price, again to be paid by the nation. It is far easier for the ruling generals to act than to think, but it might be prudent for Gen Musharraf to consider the problems his insistence on getting reelected in uniform might cause to the nation, his institution and himself. If still insistent, he might consider dropping the slogan “Pakistan first” and convert it to “Musharraf first”. At least it would be honest.
Churchill said 63 years back, “When a nation has allowed itself to fall under a tyrannical regime, it cannot be absolved from the faults due to the guilt of the regime” we are all responsible for this mess. All autocracies are mild in the beginning and gradually get worse and we are witnessing a great leap towards that unfortunate direction. The 160 million people of Pakistan would be paying the price for any misadventures so it is their responsibility to resist it. Otherwise cynics might find their connivance as no one can be abused without his consent, which is mostly silent.
khanmomar@yahoo.com
Dr. Khan heads a Lahore based Think Tank. 22-09-07
Who will pay for this national uncertainty?
Pakistan is going through very uncertain times where people are unsure of what future holds for them and their nation. Matters that can be predicted decades in advance in the civilized world are undecided and uncertain here. When will the presidential elections be held? Would government servants be allowed to contest? Which assemblies will vote? Will the opposition resign? How will the lawyers react? Will they succeed in holding big protests against the election commission? Will Gen Musharraf fulfill his promise of retiring his uniform? Will there be another emergency or martial law as repeatedly threatened? Will the civil society again tolerate it? Are we heading towards dangerous confrontation between the state and the civil society? Are we doomed towards a full-fledged civil war? These are some of the more troubling questions causing this confusion.
This uncertainty has resulted in a strange kind of anxiety evident on the faces of most Pakistanis. People seem frustrated and ready to fight on small pretexts we witness everyday on the roads. The nation as a whole seems to be unsure of its future and destiny again giving rise to depression and insecurity. People have stopped planning for their future and are mostly focusing on their day-to-day survival that has become an uphill struggle due to the shortages of wheat and other basic food items. Conspiracy theorists, who enjoy a certain amount of credibility in our society, are having a heyday with the latest theory that the government started the flour fiasco basically to distract the people from its plans of the upcoming presidential elections.
Uncertainty and unpredictability is a dangerous thing to have for a nation as it breeds insecurity of all kinds, personal and collective. It causes personal stress leading to depression on individual level and also on the collective level. Local investment is affected leading to stagnation of economy and foreign investors too stay away from uncertain and unpredictable countries. Capital, the shyest animal known runs away from uncertainty further sealing the fate of countries where uncertainty is rampant. All this results in a stale economy not creating new jobs further fueling the depression that further causes economic slow down. The capable people of a society, its most valuable asset, prefer not to raise its future generations in insecure environment and tend to migrate further spoiling the situation. This also damages the reputation of a country worldwide. Nations issue travel advisories against traveling to these countries and make travel from such country more and more difficult. The importers avoid placing orders and the shippers charge extra all at the cost of the nation. Unfortunately sounds a bit too familiar to the hapless Pakistanis.
Ultimately nations find getting out of this vicious cycle of uncertainty and economic depression extremely difficult. No wonder they take special pains to avoid such dangerous situations for the sake of their country and its future. So should we. What causes all uncertainty is all too obvious. We tolerated unelected regimes that got reckless with the nation for their own petty interests and left us to do the cleaning work.
The main issue exposing Pakistan to these dreadful risks is the wish of the rulers to keep Gen. Musharraf in power for another (at least) 5 years at any and all costs. Any and all excuses are being used. Constitution has been made a bit too pliable making it kind of a joke; the courts have been put under tremendous pressures of all kind, subtle and not so subtle. Strange legal experts are manipulating Law and internal cohesion of the country is at risk. All this is being done to let a serving Gen, Musharraf contest in the presidential elections, something unheard of in the civilized democratic world and that also from 5 years old assemblies who had elected him for one term previously also. No matter how many complicated arguments legal experts might give but no one in the whole world would be convinced of such an obvious anomaly.
After all why is he so much insistent on contesting in uniform and that also by the old assemblies? There must be something very attractive attached to it? Certainly one does not have to be a genius to see it. It is the force of the gun attached to the uniform, which makes getting votes easier. In such a scenario “free and fair” is the first causality as use of force converts free choice into coercion. Rulers seem to be convinced of their unpopularity so do not want to take a chance by letting the new assemblies vote. If the same privilege of contesting general elections in armed service is given to police, I am sure we will see an assembly consisting mostly of SHOs. Only the strongest and the most resolute would dare contest or vote against them.
According to most historians one of the major reasons for the Mughal decline was the uncertainty it caused after the deaths of emperors which was always followed by series of battles plunging the country into serious uncertainties and insecurity. Ultimately it became so weak that a trading company of a small nation far away conquered all of it. We have made a mockery of our country by playing strange cruel jokes repeatedly. No one in the world is convinced of the tricks we are trying to play. Modern world cant be persuaded that 2 and 2 makes 5 as no one would call a uniformed elections credible or democracy. Still if some foreign powers tolerate all this it would be for a very high price, again to be paid by the nation. It is far easier for the ruling generals to act than to think, but it might be prudent for Gen Musharraf to consider the problems his insistence on getting reelected in uniform might cause to the nation, his institution and himself. If still insistent, he might consider dropping the slogan “Pakistan first” and convert it to “Musharraf first”. At least it would be honest.
Churchill said 63 years back, “When a nation has allowed itself to fall under a tyrannical regime, it cannot be absolved from the faults due to the guilt of the regime” we are all responsible for this mess. All autocracies are mild in the beginning and gradually get worse and we are witnessing a great leap towards that unfortunate direction. The 160 million people of Pakistan would be paying the price for any misadventures so it is their responsibility to resist it. Otherwise cynics might find their connivance as no one can be abused without his consent, which is mostly silent.
The Uniform Dilemma
Dr. Umar Khan
khanmomar@yahoo.com
Dr. Khan heads a Lahore based Think Tank. 21-6-07
The Uniform dilemma
The future of Gen Musharraf’s uniform has become the most debated and divisive question. People across the social and political strata are commenting on it, keeping themselves busy making predictions of all sorts. Our ex prime minister Jamali innocently called the uniform a form of a dress or attire and found it strange why people made an issue out of Musharraf’s uniform. Even more interestingly Gen Musharraf himself went on TV and promised the nation to quit his uniform and then reneged on his open promise, which he now claims, did not come easy to him. Now talking to foreign media he declared his uniform like his skin, sort of an integral part of his personality and existence probably suggesting that like his predecessor Gen. Zia, he will never remove it, at least voluntarily.
What makes uniform so important that people do not want to remove it despite embarrassments? Why self-respecting people find ways to renege on their promises of removing uniform made to millions? Opt to keep it despite very obvious risks to the nation? There must be something extremely attractive and valuable that it creates a kind of dependence usually seen with narcotics or drugs. Let us explore the advantages and privileges’ wearing of uniform guarantees the ruling generals making them hinge on to it at any and all costs.
Let us face it, there is some thing more than an attractive dress that tempts ruling generals to stick to their uniforms after all it is not a benign school uniform. This uniform guarantees availability of power, raw brute power, and lots of it. This power when used for political purposes usually ensures success easily, at least within the country. This enormous power lies in the command structure of our army, which traces its roots to the Royal British Indian Army. This colonial army was purposefully created to help the colonial powers rule natives. Our army is still proud of its colonial heritage and openly prides in fighting colonial battles like Mysore and Mecca. This command structure lays tremendous importance on discipline, which is translated as absolute obedience to the immediate senior and not to written law. This system ultimately transfers all the power to a single man, the COAS whose uniform is being discussed. His uniform makes the over half million strong, heavily armed, army subservient to him instead of any law, assembly or nation. Now that is too much power for any individual to have and relinquish voluntarily.
Gen Musharraf owes much of his privileges and status to the compliance of the half million men to him individually which he owes to his uniform. Expecting him to jeopardize his position by voluntarily giving up his position might be too much to ask. He knows first hand the temptations this enormous power brings. He had himself succumbed to these temptations, which brought him immense laurels and hardly any repentance. No wonder he can’t find a single general he can trust with such enormous unchecked power. Gen Musharraf has some company in the list of untrusting Chiefs as no ruling general after Ayub Khan trusted any of his subordinates with this kind of power.
So it comes out that wearing of uniform means unrestrained availability of enormous brute force that can be used for political and other ends. This situation might have advantages for an individual but grave consequences for the nation. Unfortunately it also means many other things, the foremost being use of force and gun for political purposes. It certainly lends enormous convenience and a certain amount of predictability as not many people can face a man with a loaded gun with confidence. It basically means doing politics and dealing with people while visibly holding a loaded gun in the hand adding violence to politics which ultimately trickles down to all corners of society.
The simple realization of the relation of uniform and the loaded gun raises many troubling questions. Can there be a legitimate fair business deal while one party is holding a loaded gun? Can the judges give impartial judgments with pointing guns at their heads? Can there be a constitutional amendment while the parliament is kept at gunpoint. Does this explain the creative coining of terms by our judiciary like “doctrine of necessity”? And then does this explain certain apparently elected assemblies begging the ruling General not to relinquish his uniform? Does this not explain the decay in society where rule of brute force takes precedence over rule of law?
Once this is realized it raises many serious but pertinent questions the foremost being why this counter productive practice has been tolerated for so long? It also makes all the constitutional amendments passed under uniformed Presidents questionable suggesting of armed coercion. Just like the inadmissibility of evidence taken during duress, judgments of the courts given during uniformed rulers also lose its sanctity. No wonder son of a military dictator ridiculed the judges for giving posthumous judgment against his father and a retired CJ confessed that generals can fire the judges.
This practice of conducting politics while wielding a loaded gun has being going on for too long. It has seriously harmed Pakistan mostly through,
Harming the respect for written law substituting it with brute force. This single fact brought untold violence in our society and established it as a legitimate means of solving issues. Rule of law was replaced by rule of force.
Hurting the internal cohesion of the country by weakening its democratic institutions. This has already broken the country once and appears to be working again.
Pakistan became a perfect breeding ground for extremist and intolerant elements. In today’s world Pakistan is suspected whenever anything goes wrong anywhere.
Devastating the image of Pakistan as a lawless country. It is considered a near failed state, its democratic claims are not taken serious, and everyone associated with Pakistan is considered a suspect.
A pretty sad commentary indeed. Defaming of the army and the judiciary is against our constitution and if that is undesirable and intolerable, how can defaming the country be acceptable. This uniformed politics has defamed us a lot, maybe more than extremism.
Our society has tolerated this harmful anomaly for too long and paid a very stiff price for this weakness, which needs immediate correction. Advantages and privileges associated with armed interventions must be curtailed and risks increased. The military should be made subservient to the nation and constitution instead of the chief alone. The command structure might be reviewed and the pride in its colonial heritage discouraged.
Importance of the constitution and the need of not breaking the oath must be inculcated vigorously. History teaches us that simple trainings do not work sufficiently so grave consequences must be credibly associated with breaking of the oath. Punishing a few prominent oath breakers might help along with rewriting our history with oath breakers placed where they deserve. Renaming a few colleges and parks might be needed. And then the most important thing let it be known that any attempt at breaking of oath won’t work. For this the civil society will have to be stimulated to ensure unconstitutional steps will not be tolerated in future. Then we must review the dubious constitutional amendments and judgments of the superior courts made under duress while facing loaded guns.
The Pakistani civil society owes it to its future generations to vacate the politics and society of guns and violence. The past cannot be changed but the future can certainly be shaped. The nation rather than individuals should determine the tenure of uniformed posts. These decisions should be based on law rather than whims or individual conveniences. There is no third or half way, the civil society has to prevail over usurpers if we want to survive as a respectable nation in the new century. If we have to do it then it might be prudent to do it at the earliest and control the further damages violent politics might cause.
khanmomar@yahoo.com
Dr. Khan heads a Lahore based Think Tank. 21-6-07
The Uniform dilemma
The future of Gen Musharraf’s uniform has become the most debated and divisive question. People across the social and political strata are commenting on it, keeping themselves busy making predictions of all sorts. Our ex prime minister Jamali innocently called the uniform a form of a dress or attire and found it strange why people made an issue out of Musharraf’s uniform. Even more interestingly Gen Musharraf himself went on TV and promised the nation to quit his uniform and then reneged on his open promise, which he now claims, did not come easy to him. Now talking to foreign media he declared his uniform like his skin, sort of an integral part of his personality and existence probably suggesting that like his predecessor Gen. Zia, he will never remove it, at least voluntarily.
What makes uniform so important that people do not want to remove it despite embarrassments? Why self-respecting people find ways to renege on their promises of removing uniform made to millions? Opt to keep it despite very obvious risks to the nation? There must be something extremely attractive and valuable that it creates a kind of dependence usually seen with narcotics or drugs. Let us explore the advantages and privileges’ wearing of uniform guarantees the ruling generals making them hinge on to it at any and all costs.
Let us face it, there is some thing more than an attractive dress that tempts ruling generals to stick to their uniforms after all it is not a benign school uniform. This uniform guarantees availability of power, raw brute power, and lots of it. This power when used for political purposes usually ensures success easily, at least within the country. This enormous power lies in the command structure of our army, which traces its roots to the Royal British Indian Army. This colonial army was purposefully created to help the colonial powers rule natives. Our army is still proud of its colonial heritage and openly prides in fighting colonial battles like Mysore and Mecca. This command structure lays tremendous importance on discipline, which is translated as absolute obedience to the immediate senior and not to written law. This system ultimately transfers all the power to a single man, the COAS whose uniform is being discussed. His uniform makes the over half million strong, heavily armed, army subservient to him instead of any law, assembly or nation. Now that is too much power for any individual to have and relinquish voluntarily.
Gen Musharraf owes much of his privileges and status to the compliance of the half million men to him individually which he owes to his uniform. Expecting him to jeopardize his position by voluntarily giving up his position might be too much to ask. He knows first hand the temptations this enormous power brings. He had himself succumbed to these temptations, which brought him immense laurels and hardly any repentance. No wonder he can’t find a single general he can trust with such enormous unchecked power. Gen Musharraf has some company in the list of untrusting Chiefs as no ruling general after Ayub Khan trusted any of his subordinates with this kind of power.
So it comes out that wearing of uniform means unrestrained availability of enormous brute force that can be used for political and other ends. This situation might have advantages for an individual but grave consequences for the nation. Unfortunately it also means many other things, the foremost being use of force and gun for political purposes. It certainly lends enormous convenience and a certain amount of predictability as not many people can face a man with a loaded gun with confidence. It basically means doing politics and dealing with people while visibly holding a loaded gun in the hand adding violence to politics which ultimately trickles down to all corners of society.
The simple realization of the relation of uniform and the loaded gun raises many troubling questions. Can there be a legitimate fair business deal while one party is holding a loaded gun? Can the judges give impartial judgments with pointing guns at their heads? Can there be a constitutional amendment while the parliament is kept at gunpoint. Does this explain the creative coining of terms by our judiciary like “doctrine of necessity”? And then does this explain certain apparently elected assemblies begging the ruling General not to relinquish his uniform? Does this not explain the decay in society where rule of brute force takes precedence over rule of law?
Once this is realized it raises many serious but pertinent questions the foremost being why this counter productive practice has been tolerated for so long? It also makes all the constitutional amendments passed under uniformed Presidents questionable suggesting of armed coercion. Just like the inadmissibility of evidence taken during duress, judgments of the courts given during uniformed rulers also lose its sanctity. No wonder son of a military dictator ridiculed the judges for giving posthumous judgment against his father and a retired CJ confessed that generals can fire the judges.
This practice of conducting politics while wielding a loaded gun has being going on for too long. It has seriously harmed Pakistan mostly through,
Harming the respect for written law substituting it with brute force. This single fact brought untold violence in our society and established it as a legitimate means of solving issues. Rule of law was replaced by rule of force.
Hurting the internal cohesion of the country by weakening its democratic institutions. This has already broken the country once and appears to be working again.
Pakistan became a perfect breeding ground for extremist and intolerant elements. In today’s world Pakistan is suspected whenever anything goes wrong anywhere.
Devastating the image of Pakistan as a lawless country. It is considered a near failed state, its democratic claims are not taken serious, and everyone associated with Pakistan is considered a suspect.
A pretty sad commentary indeed. Defaming of the army and the judiciary is against our constitution and if that is undesirable and intolerable, how can defaming the country be acceptable. This uniformed politics has defamed us a lot, maybe more than extremism.
Our society has tolerated this harmful anomaly for too long and paid a very stiff price for this weakness, which needs immediate correction. Advantages and privileges associated with armed interventions must be curtailed and risks increased. The military should be made subservient to the nation and constitution instead of the chief alone. The command structure might be reviewed and the pride in its colonial heritage discouraged.
Importance of the constitution and the need of not breaking the oath must be inculcated vigorously. History teaches us that simple trainings do not work sufficiently so grave consequences must be credibly associated with breaking of the oath. Punishing a few prominent oath breakers might help along with rewriting our history with oath breakers placed where they deserve. Renaming a few colleges and parks might be needed. And then the most important thing let it be known that any attempt at breaking of oath won’t work. For this the civil society will have to be stimulated to ensure unconstitutional steps will not be tolerated in future. Then we must review the dubious constitutional amendments and judgments of the superior courts made under duress while facing loaded guns.
The Pakistani civil society owes it to its future generations to vacate the politics and society of guns and violence. The past cannot be changed but the future can certainly be shaped. The nation rather than individuals should determine the tenure of uniformed posts. These decisions should be based on law rather than whims or individual conveniences. There is no third or half way, the civil society has to prevail over usurpers if we want to survive as a respectable nation in the new century. If we have to do it then it might be prudent to do it at the earliest and control the further damages violent politics might cause.
The new rebels
Dr. Umar Khan
khanmomar@yahoo.com
Dr. Khan heads a Lahore based Think Tank. 06-7-07
The new rebels
Dr. Amir Liaqat Hussain, the man with golden voice and face resigned from national assembly while his place in cabinet will go automatically. Although he claims personal reasons for the resignation, but this appears to be a polite way of registering his dissatisfaction with the government. He belongs to MQM and also holds the cabinet portfolio of religious affairs. He anchors a popular religious TV program on a private channel, which was very popular with the president’s family too.
He is not the only one to discover serious flaws with the government lately, so serious that he wants to distance himself. Ishaq Khakwani another cabinet member along with Mushahid Hussain the Secretary of the ruling party also openly expressed their dissatisfaction with the party and its actual leadership. We are routinely hearing comments from the ranks of the ruling party sounding suspiciously like oppositions, which could not have been imagined just a few months back. This list of new rebels in the ruling party and coalition is on the increase.
This dissatisfaction with the government is not limited to individuals alone as coalition partners are also expressing their discontent with the ruling alliance. MQM after being part of the government for nearly five years enjoying juicy portfolios on the federal and provincial level, is now repeatedly articulating conditions in which it would leave the government, rather never to support a military ruler. And then the MMA, although it always did maintain a kind of rhetoric against the government while enjoying two provincial governments and the official leader of opposition status, is also talking louder against the government. This anti government rhetoric by the MMA has become so prominent that Maulana Fazal Rehman is sounding like a proper opposition leader while Qazi Hussein’s attitude can convince even the most cynical of his opposition credentials despite repeatedly bailing out the government in the recent past.
These fresh resignations and attempts to distance from the government are very interesting. The elected assemblies have nearly finished their terms and are about to be dissolved. In a country like Pakistan where playing opposition against a government, specially a uniformed government can be dangerous to say the least, these politicians played allies to the uniformed government reaping all the benefits that come with it which are plenty. They also protected themselves from NAB and their doings of past by joining the government. And now when the new elections are due, they feel the government is unpopular and would not be able to get them enough votes to make them win. To make matters worse, the government’s ability to manipulate the results also seem to be reduced along with the authority of the uniformed president making his association more of a liability. In short these smart politicians do not want to be associated with political forces that are unable to get people elected. Much of the ruling coalition seems to have lost hope and is looking for other options.
The benefits that come from belonging to the government are as numerous and substantial as the risks involved in opposing it can be serious. Pakistan is an overgrown state with a very weak judiciary. Over here to be successful in any endeavor whether business, professional or service, government support can have the final say in the outcome. Now after reaping all the benefits evading the responsibility might be unfair. Politicians voluntarily being part of the ruling coalition owe it to themselves and the nation to take the responsibilities of their actions for the last five years. If they cannot find sufficient reasons to be proud of, they should certainly find reasons to apologize or promise to do things differently again. Anyway trying to escape the responsibility might put them in a position like that of Maulana Aziz evading in a burqa, not a very desirable scenario.
Although the attempt of these politicians to distance themselves from the government is understandable but not justifiable. They have seen people playing over smart in Pakistani politics and getting away with it. After all the popularity of Musharraf’s government is at it’s lowest in the last eight years and people don’t want to share this burden with him. Still it is not reasonable and should not be attempted. First because one must face the consequences of his actions and take full responsibility. Secondly it appears that these politicians consider voters fools and themselves too smart. This has been a big mistake of our privileged classes to underestimate our common voters as uneducated masses or ignorant and foolish whereas the evidence is different. Whenever these people were given a chance they proved that their collective wisdom was certainly better than many of the privileged. The simple fact that our voters always rejected the intolerant religious elements in elections speaks volumes about their wisdom. They rejected the extremists when extremism was fashionable and enlightened moderation was unheard of. When religious extremism could fetch votes in USA as neo cons or in India as BJP our voters routinely rejected them. Trying to fool this group of enlightened, wise voters would never work so should not be attempted. After all this awful attempt might be construed as an insult to the intelligence of the voters to which they might not take kindly.
khanmomar@yahoo.com
Dr. Khan heads a Lahore based Think Tank. 06-7-07
The new rebels
Dr. Amir Liaqat Hussain, the man with golden voice and face resigned from national assembly while his place in cabinet will go automatically. Although he claims personal reasons for the resignation, but this appears to be a polite way of registering his dissatisfaction with the government. He belongs to MQM and also holds the cabinet portfolio of religious affairs. He anchors a popular religious TV program on a private channel, which was very popular with the president’s family too.
He is not the only one to discover serious flaws with the government lately, so serious that he wants to distance himself. Ishaq Khakwani another cabinet member along with Mushahid Hussain the Secretary of the ruling party also openly expressed their dissatisfaction with the party and its actual leadership. We are routinely hearing comments from the ranks of the ruling party sounding suspiciously like oppositions, which could not have been imagined just a few months back. This list of new rebels in the ruling party and coalition is on the increase.
This dissatisfaction with the government is not limited to individuals alone as coalition partners are also expressing their discontent with the ruling alliance. MQM after being part of the government for nearly five years enjoying juicy portfolios on the federal and provincial level, is now repeatedly articulating conditions in which it would leave the government, rather never to support a military ruler. And then the MMA, although it always did maintain a kind of rhetoric against the government while enjoying two provincial governments and the official leader of opposition status, is also talking louder against the government. This anti government rhetoric by the MMA has become so prominent that Maulana Fazal Rehman is sounding like a proper opposition leader while Qazi Hussein’s attitude can convince even the most cynical of his opposition credentials despite repeatedly bailing out the government in the recent past.
These fresh resignations and attempts to distance from the government are very interesting. The elected assemblies have nearly finished their terms and are about to be dissolved. In a country like Pakistan where playing opposition against a government, specially a uniformed government can be dangerous to say the least, these politicians played allies to the uniformed government reaping all the benefits that come with it which are plenty. They also protected themselves from NAB and their doings of past by joining the government. And now when the new elections are due, they feel the government is unpopular and would not be able to get them enough votes to make them win. To make matters worse, the government’s ability to manipulate the results also seem to be reduced along with the authority of the uniformed president making his association more of a liability. In short these smart politicians do not want to be associated with political forces that are unable to get people elected. Much of the ruling coalition seems to have lost hope and is looking for other options.
The benefits that come from belonging to the government are as numerous and substantial as the risks involved in opposing it can be serious. Pakistan is an overgrown state with a very weak judiciary. Over here to be successful in any endeavor whether business, professional or service, government support can have the final say in the outcome. Now after reaping all the benefits evading the responsibility might be unfair. Politicians voluntarily being part of the ruling coalition owe it to themselves and the nation to take the responsibilities of their actions for the last five years. If they cannot find sufficient reasons to be proud of, they should certainly find reasons to apologize or promise to do things differently again. Anyway trying to escape the responsibility might put them in a position like that of Maulana Aziz evading in a burqa, not a very desirable scenario.
Although the attempt of these politicians to distance themselves from the government is understandable but not justifiable. They have seen people playing over smart in Pakistani politics and getting away with it. After all the popularity of Musharraf’s government is at it’s lowest in the last eight years and people don’t want to share this burden with him. Still it is not reasonable and should not be attempted. First because one must face the consequences of his actions and take full responsibility. Secondly it appears that these politicians consider voters fools and themselves too smart. This has been a big mistake of our privileged classes to underestimate our common voters as uneducated masses or ignorant and foolish whereas the evidence is different. Whenever these people were given a chance they proved that their collective wisdom was certainly better than many of the privileged. The simple fact that our voters always rejected the intolerant religious elements in elections speaks volumes about their wisdom. They rejected the extremists when extremism was fashionable and enlightened moderation was unheard of. When religious extremism could fetch votes in USA as neo cons or in India as BJP our voters routinely rejected them. Trying to fool this group of enlightened, wise voters would never work so should not be attempted. After all this awful attempt might be construed as an insult to the intelligence of the voters to which they might not take kindly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
