The targeted attack on Malala Yusufzai should open the eyes of all those who have been looking for ways to avoid fighting these barbarians.
This young girl is the latest casualty in a clash of contrasting visions. Others, notably former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer and Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti, have been killed for advocating enlightenment against the obscurantism represented by the Taliban and its Islamist allies.
Muslims have good reason to be angry—and it’s not a sophomoric movie trailer on youtube.
Thousands of cellphone subscribers in Pakistan received an anonymous text message recently announcing a miracle: an earthquake on Tuesday, Sept. 18, had destroyed the Washington, D.C. movie theater that was exhibiting Innocence of Muslims, the controversial film that has triggered violent protests in several Muslim countries. An email version of the text message even included a picture of a mangled structure. Allah, the texter claimed, had shown His anger against the movie’s insult to Islam and Prophet Muhammad, and with Him on their side the faithful should not be afraid to vent their anger against the West, which belittles Islam and abuses Islam’s prophet.
حسین حقانی
گزشتہ دنوں توہینِ رسالت کے نام پر دنگا فساد کی تازہ مہم شروع ہوئی تو ایک بار پھر امریکہ، پیپلز پارٹی اور اس خاکسار کو بھی رگیدنے کی دکان پُر رونق نظر آنے لگی۔ اس موضوع پر امریکہ کے اخبار وال اسٹریٹ جرنل میں شائع ہونے والے میرے مضمون پر تبصرہ کرتے ہوئے ایک صاحب[اوریا مقبول جان کی طرف اشارہ ہے] نے ، جو شاید عبرانی نام رکھنے پر اپنے والدین سے اتنے ناراض ہیں کہ اپنا غصہ قابو میں نہیں رکھ پاتے، اسے میری منافقت کا پردہ چاک کرنے کے مترادف قرار دیا۔ نہ میری دلیل پر غور کیا نہ اصل موضوع پر۔ بس مذہبی جذباتیت کے گرد لفاضی کا تانہ بانہ بُن کر امریکہ پر برس پڑے۔
حقیقت یہ ہے کہ حضور صلی اللہ علیہ واٰلہ وسلم کی شان میں کوئی گستاخی ہو تو ہر مسلمان کا دل دکھتا ہے۔ لیکن گستاخانہ بات کا چرچا صرف وہ لوگ کرتے ہیں جو اِس گستاخی کی آڑ میں سیاست کرنا چاہتے ہیں۔ برصغیر ہندو پاک میں یہ دھندا پرانا ہے۔ 1927ء میں پنڈت چموہتی نے حضور اکرم کی شان میں گستاخی کرتے ہوئے “رنگیلا رسول نامی کتاب لکھی تو کسی نے اس کتاب کو پڑھا تک نہیں۔ 1929ء میں پنجاب کے احراریوں نے اس کتاب کے خلاف احتجاج کیا تو مسلمانوں میں غیرت کی لہر دوڑ گئی۔ کتاب کے پبلشر کو عدالت نے بری کر دیا تو علم دین نے اُسے قتل کر دیا اور اس کی حمایت میں بھی بڑی پُر زور تحریک چلی۔ لیکن میرا سوال یہ ہے کہ کیا غیرت کی اس تحریک سے حضور پر نور کی شان میں ہونے والی گستاخی کا ازالہ ہو گیا؟ گستاخانہ کتاب آج بھی انٹرنیٹ پر دستیاب ہے۔ اس کتاب کے نام پر تحریک نہ چلی ہوتی تو نہ کوئی کتاب پڑھتا ، نہ اس کا چرچا ہوتا۔ پچھلے ستر /اسی برسوں میں غیرت و حمیت کے نام پر چلنے والی تحریکوں نے مسلمانوں کو مضبوط کرنے کی بجائے مزید کمزور کیا ہے۔
اوریا مقبول جان
1967ء میں ٹرکش آرٹ آف لونگ (Turkish Art of Loving)نامی کتاب میں بھی حضور اکرم کی شان اقدس میں گستاخی کی گئی۔ کتاب نہ زیادہ فروخت ہوئی نہ پڑھی گئی۔ لیکن1971ء میں سانحہء مشرقی پاکستان کے تناظر میں پاکستان کی منظم ترین مذہبی سیاسی جماعت نے اس کتاب کے خلاف احتجاج کا فیصلہ کیا۔1970 کے انتخابات میں شکست اور مشرقی پاکستان میں فوجی کاروائی کی حمایت کو نبی رحمت کی شان میں گستاخی کے خلاف مظاہروں کے ذریعے دھونے کی کوشش نے غیر اہم کتاب کو اہم بنا دیا۔ کتاب آج بھی فروخت ہو رہی ہے۔ اس کے خلاف مظاہرے صرف اس کی تشہیر کا ذریعہ بنےہیں۔ سلمان رشدی کی “شیطانی آیات”(Satanic Verses) کا معاملہ بھی ایسا ہی ہے۔
یو ٹیوب پر مصری مسیحی کی بنائی ہوئی فلم بھی دنیا کے پانچ ارب انسانوں میں سے صرف چند سو نے دیکھی ہوگی کہ مصر میں اسلام کے نام پر سیاست کرنے والوں نے اس کی آڑ میں مقبولیت حاصل کرنے کی کوشش کر ڈالی۔ پوری دنیا کے مسلمان جو عسکری ، اقتصادی اور سیاسی کمزوریوں کی وجہ سے توہین یا ہتک پر جوش میں آجاتے ہیں غیرت ایمانی کی تازہ ترین دعوت پر متحرک ہو گئے۔ سیاسی اسلام کے بے ایمان چوہدریوں نے ایک بار پھر ایک ایسی بات کی۔ پہلے [توہین آمیز فلم کی ]تشہیر کی جو کسی کی نظر میں نہ تھی، پھر اُس تشہیر کے بعد اُ س کے خلاف احتجاج کیا۔
مجھ جیسے گناہ گار نے (جسے تقویٰ کا دعویٰ ہی نہیں ہےبلکہ جو اپنی نوجوانی میں ان ٹھیکیدارانِ اسلام کے ساتھ وقت گزار کر ان کے طور طریقے سمجھ گیا ہے) صرف اس بات کی نشاندہی کی تھی کہ غیرت ایمانی کے نام پر بلوہ کرنا بعض لوگوں کی سیاست کا تقاضا ہے نہ کہ حضور سے محبت کا۔ اس نفاق کا پردہ چاک ہونے کا طعنہ صرف وہی دے سکتا ہے جو تعصب میں اتنا ڈوبا ہو کہ دوسرے نقطہء نظر کو سمجھنا ہی نہ چاہتا ہو۔
“رنگیلا رسول ” سے لے کر “شیطانی آیات” تک ہر گستاخانہ تحریر کی تشہیر خود سیاسی مسلمانوں ہی نے کی ورنہ یہ گستاخانہ باتیں کبھی اہمیت حاصل نہ کرتیں۔ دنیا میں کہیں نہ کہیں کوئی نہ کوئی ہمارے دین اور ہمارے نبی کے خلاف کچھ نہ کچھ ضرور کہے گا۔ ایسی باتوں کو ڈھونڈ ڈھونڈ کر مسلمانوں کے جذبات بھڑکانے سے نہ دین کی عظمت میں اضافہ ہوگا نہ مسلمانوں کی کمزوریوں کا ازالہ۔
حضور اکرم کی شان میں گستاخی کرنے والوں غیر اہم جاہلوں سے نمٹنے کے لئے ہدایات قرآن پاک میں موجود ہیں۔ سورۃ الاعراف کی آیت199 میں حکم ہے ” عفو سے کام لیجئے ، بھلائی کا حکم دیجئے اور جاہلوں کو نظر انداز کیجئے”۔ سورۃ الفرقان کی آیت 63 میں اہل ایمان کی تعریف یوں کی گئی ہے “رحمٰن کے بندے وہ ہیں جو زمین پر انکساری سے چلتے ہیں، اور جب جاہل اُن سے کلام کرتے ہیں تو وہ کہتے ہیں سلام”۔ سورۃ النحل کی آیت 125 میں کہا گیا ہے کہ “لوگوں کو اپنے رب کے راستے کی دعوت حکمت اور موعظت سے دواور اگر بحث کرو تو شائستگی سے دلائل دو”۔
اکیسویں صدی میں مسلمانوں کے بہت سے مسائل ہیں۔ ان مسائل کے حل کے حوالے سے ہمارے درمیان بہت سا اختلاف رائے بھی ہوگا لیکن اس اختلافِ رائے میں شائستگی کا دامن وہی لوگ چھوڑتے ہیں جو دین و مذہب کو سیاست کا سیلہ بناتے ہیں۔ اُن کی نگاہ میں ہر وہ شخص جو اُ ن کی رائے سے اتفاق نہیں کر تاوہ غیر ملکی ایجنٹ ہے، گستاخِ رسول ہے، اسلام کا دشمن ہے۔ حقیقت یہ ہے کہ اسلام اور رسول کی عظمت سڑکوں پر مظاہرے کرنے والوں کی وجہ سے نہیں ہے۔ اس عظمت کے تحفظ کا ذمہ خود اللہ تعالیٰ نے لیا ہوا ہے۔ کوئی کتاب یا کوئی فلم حضور اکرم کی شان میں کمی نہیں کر سکتی۔ کوئی کالم نویس اسلام کی عظمت کا ضامن نہیں ہے۔ اسلام محفوظ ہے اور مسلمانوں کے زوال کے دنیاوی اسباب کا علاج بھی سمجھدارانہ دنیاوی فیصلوں ہی سے ممکن ہے۔
ملا کی سیاست کی ضرورت ہے وگرنہ
اسلام کو ہر بات سے خطرہ نہیں ہوتا
The attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions this week—beginning in Egypt and Libya, and moving to Yemen and other Muslim countries—came under cover of riots against an obscure online video insulting Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. But the mob violence and assaults should be seen for what they really are: an effort by Islamists to garner support and mobilize their base by exacerbating anti-Western sentiments.
When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to calm Muslims Thursday by denouncing the video, she was unwittingly playing along with the ruse the radicals set up. The United States would have been better off focusing on the only outrage that was of legitimate interest to the American government: the lack of respect—shown by a complaisant Egyptian government and other Islamists—for U.S. diplomatic missions.
Protests orchestrated on the pretext of slights and offenses against Islam have been part of Islamist strategy for decades. Iran’s ayatollahs built an entire revolution around anti-Americanism. While the Iranian revolution was underway in 1979, Pakistan’s Islamists whipped up crowds by spreading rumors that the Americans had forcibly occupied Islam’s most sacred site, the Ka’aba or the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Pakistani protesters burned the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad.
Violent demonstrations in many parts of the Muslim world after the 1989 fatwa—or religious condemnation—of a novel by Salman Rushdie, or after the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in 2005, also did not represent spontaneous outrage. In each case, the insult to Islam or its prophet was first publicized by Islamists themselves so they could use it as justification for planned violence.
Once mourning over the death of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and others subsides, we will hear familiar arguments in the West. Some will rightly say that Islamist sensibilities cannot and should not lead to self-censorship here. Others will point out that freedom of expression should not be equated with a freedom to offend. They will say: Just as a non-Jew, out of respect for other religious beliefs, does not exercise his freedom to desecrate a Torah scroll, similar respect should be extended to Muslims and what they deem sacred.
Associated PressA street protester near the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, Sept. 13.
But this debate, as thoughtful as it may be, is a distraction from what is really going on. It ignores the political intent of Islamists for whom every perceived affront to Islam is an opportunity to exploit a wedge issue for their own empowerment.
As for affronts, the Western mainstream is, by and large, quite respectful toward Muslims, millions of whom have adopted Europe and North America as their home and enjoy all the freedoms the West has to offer, including the freedom to worship. Insignificant or unnoticed videos and publications would have no impact on anyone, anywhere, if the Islamists did not choose to publicize them for radical effect.
And insults, real or hyped, are not the problem. At the heart of Muslim street violence is the frustration of the world’s Muslims over their steady decline for three centuries, a decline that has coincided with the rise and spread of the West’s military, economic and intellectual prowess.
During the 800 years of Muslim ascendancy beginning in the eighth century—in Southern Europe, North Africa and much of Western Asia—Muslims did not riot to protest non-Muslim insults against Islam or its prophet. There is no historic record of random attacks against non-Muslim targets in retaliation for a non-Muslim insulting Prophet Muhammad, though there are many books derogatory toward Islam’s prophet that were written in the era of Islam’s great empires. Muslims under Turkey’s Ottomans, for example, did not attack non-Muslim envoys (the medieval equivalent of today’s embassies) or churches upon hearing of real or rumored European sacrilege against their religion.
Clearly, then, violent responses to perceived injury are not integral to Islam. A religion is what its followers make it, and Muslims opting for violence have chosen to paint their faith as one that is prone to anger. Frustration with their inability to succeed in the competition between nations also has led some Muslims to seek symbolic victories.
Yet the momentary triumph of burning another country’s flag or setting on fire a Western business or embassy building is a poor but widespread substitute for global success that eludes the modern world’s 1.5 billion Muslims. Violent protest represents the lower rung of the ladder of rage; terrorism is its higher form.
Islamists almost by definition have a vested interest in continuously fanning the flames of Muslim victimhood. For Islamists, wrath against the West is the basis for their claim to the support of Muslim masses, taking attention away from societal political and economic failures. For example, the 57 member states of the Organization of Islamic Conference account for one-fifth of the world’s population but their combined gross domestic product is less than 7% of global output—a harsh reality for which Islamists offer no solution.
Even after recent developments that were labeled the Arab Spring, few Muslim-majority countries either fulfill—or look likely to—the criteria for freedom set by the independent group Freedom House. Mainstream discourse among Muslims blames everyone but themselves for this situation. The image of an ascendant West belittling Islam with the view to eliminate it serves as a convenient explanation for Muslim weakness.
Once the Muslim world embraces freedom of expression, it will be able to recognize the value of that freedom even for those who offend Muslim sensibilities. More important: Only in a free democratic environment will the world’s Muslims be able to debate the causes of their powerlessness, which stirs in them greater anger than any specific action on the part of Islam’s Western detractors.
Until then, the U.S. would do well to remember Osama bin Laden’s comment not long after the Sept. 11 attacks: “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.” America should do nothing that enables Islamists to portray the nation as the weak horse.
Mr. Haqqani is professor of international relations at Boston University and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He served as Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S. in 2008-11.
A version of this article appeared September 14, 2012, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Manipulated Outrage and Misplaced Fury.
Husain Haqqani, a professor of international relations at Boston University and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, served as Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States from 2008 to 2011.
I am saddened but not surprised that a Pakistani judicial inquiry commission has accused me of being disloyal while serving as my country’s ambassador to the United States. The tide of anti-Americanism has been rising in Pakistan for almost a decade. An overwhelming majority of Pakistanis consider the United States an enemy, notwithstanding the nominal alliance that has existed between our countries for six decades. Americans, frustrated by what they see as Pakistani intransigence in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan, are becoming less willing to accept Pakistani demands even though Pakistan has suffered heavily at the hands of terrorists.
This is a difficult time to openly advocate friendly relations between the United States and Pakistan. I am proud that I did so as ambassador. During my tenure, the United States agreed to initiate a strategic dialogue with Pakistani civil and military leaders. The idea was to overcome the episodic nature of bilateral relations: Our countries had a pattern of working together for a few years and then falling out amid complaints about each other. The strategic dialogue sought to reconcile Pakistan’s regional concerns about Afghanistan and India with U.S. global concerns about nuclear proliferation and terrorism. But the dialogue stalled last year, and a series of unfortunate incidents, culminating in Osama bin Laden being found in Pakistan last year, has brought our countries to the brink of an adversarial relationship.
My sincere efforts to transcend the parallel narratives that have shaped U.S.-Pakistani relations were not always appreciated in Pakistan, where conspiracy theories and hatred for the United States have become a daily staple of the national discourse. My detractors in Pakistan’s security services and among pro-Jihadi groups have long accused me of being pro-American; they condescendingly described me as the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan based in Washington. Falsehoods were circulated in Pakistani media about my issuing thousands of visas to “CIA spies” who would allegedly act with impunity against my country. Few considered that Pakistan was pledged record amounts of U.S. aid and that Pakistani views were being heard on a range of issues. The expectation that Washington should simply do whatever the Pakistani hyper-nationalists desire remains unrealistic.
I resigned last November after a U.S. businessman of Pakistani origin — now residing in Monaco — claimed that I had asked him to deliver a secret memo to Adm. Michael Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, seeking U.S. help in thwarting a military coup right after the U.S. operation that killed bin Laden. The affair was dubbed “Memogate” by the Pakistani media. Our Supreme Court, pursuing a populist ideological agenda without regard to legal or constitutional niceties, intervened directly. Without any trial, it created a Commission of Inquiry and barred me from leaving Pakistan, though it later relented.
This week the commission presented its findings. It alleged that I had acted against Pakistan’s interests and had authorized the controversial memo. The report’s release has been timed to distract attention from serious allegations by a Pakistani businessman that he paid millions to the son of Pakistan’s chief justice as part of efforts to buy favors.
How ironic that Pakistani hard-liners claim I was an American agent of influence with access in Washington’s power corridors. Were that true, there would have been no reason for me to seek help, certainly not from a businessman of dubious credentials, to deliver a message to the U.S. government. The one-sided “evidence” has failed to prove my connection to the memo. I have not been charged or tried — though the report could lead to charges, and a treason conviction carries the death penalty. No, I was simply labeled guilty by a “fact-finding” commission that bent over backward to accommodate my discredited accuser.
The commission’s bias was clear in its refusal to hear from me via videoconference — a request I made in light of security threats — and its lack of interest in seeking the testimony of U.S. officials who received the controversial memo, Mullen and Gen. Jim Jones. Notably, Jones said in a sworn affidavit that I had nothing to do with the document that had been transmitted to him and that the memo reflected the ideas of its author, the American businessman Mansoor Ijaz.
The commission’s findings are motivated by politics, not law. I served Pakistan sincerely. Most people in Washington saw and know that. Branding me a traitor will not solve any of Pakistan’s myriad problems, not least of which is the prospect of international isolation. The 2012 BBC Globescan poll found that the international perception of Pakistan is as bad as that of Iran and North Korea.
It is tragic that anti-Americanism is being exploited to push ideological agendas, but I stand by my view that positive U.S.-Pakistan relations under a civilian-led Pakistani government are necessary for international peace and Pakistan’s stability. My real “crime” is standing up for U.S.-Pakistan relations for Pakistan’s sake. I had nothing to do with writing and sending that memo. But many people around the world would recognize that its contents suggesting changes in Pakistan’s counterterrorism and nuclear policies reflect reasonable views that are not treasonous and are, in fact, in line with global thinking.
This was published in Washington Post on June 13 2012
ON the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death last week, Pakistan was the only Muslim country in which hundreds of demonstrators gathered to show solidarity with the dead terrorist figurehead.
Yet rather than asking tough questions about how Bin Laden had managed to live unmolested in Pakistan for years, the Pakistani Supreme Court instead chose to punish the prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, by charging him with contempt for failing to carry out the court’s own partisan agenda — in this case, pressuring the Swiss government to reopen a decades-old corruption investigation of President Asif Ali Zardari. (Never mind that Swiss officials say they are unlikely to revisit the charges.)
In handing down the decision, one justice chose to paraphrase the Lebanese poet Khalil Gibran. He held forth in a long appeal to religious-nationalist sentiment that began with the line, “Pity the nation that achieves nationhood in the name of a religion but pays little heed to truth, righteousness and accountability, which are the essence of every religion.”
That a Supreme Court justice would cite poetry instead of law while sentencing an elected leader on questionable charges reflects Pakistan’s deep state of denial about its true national priorities at a time when the country is threatened by religious extremism and terrorism.
Today, Pakistan is polarized between those who envision a modern, pluralist country and those who condone violence against minorities and terrorism in the name of Islam. Many are caught in the middle; they support the pluralist vision but dislike the politicians espousing it.
Meanwhile, an elephant in the room remains. We still don’t know who enabled Bin Laden to live freely in Pakistan. Documents found on computers in his compound offer no direct evidence of support from Pakistan’s government, army or intelligence services. But even if Bin Laden relied on a private support network, our courts should be focused on identifying, arresting and prosecuting the individuals who helped him. Unfortunately, their priorities seem to lie elsewhere.
In Pakistan, most of the debate about Bin Laden has centered on how and why America violated Pakistan’s sovereignty by unilaterally carrying out an operation to kill him. There has been little discussion about whether the presence of the world’s most-wanted terrorist in a garrison town filled with army officers was itself a threat to the sovereignty and security of Pakistan.
Pakistanis are right to see themselves as victims of terrorism and to be offended by American unilateralism in dealing with it. Last year alone, 4,447 people were killed in 476 major terrorist attacks. Over the last decade, thousands of soldiers and law enforcement officers have died fighting terrorists — both homegrown, and those inspired by Al Qaeda’s nihilist ideology.
But if anything, the reaction should be to gear up and fight jihadist ideology and those who perpetrate terrorist acts in its name; they remain the gravest threat to Pakistan’s stability. Instead, our national discourse has been hijacked by those seeking to deflect attention from militant Islamic extremism.
The national mind-set that condones this sort of extremism was cultivated and encouraged under the military dictatorships of Gen. Mohammad Zia ul-Haq from 1977 to 1988 and Gen. Pervez Musharraf from 1999 to 2008. A whole generation of Pakistanis has grown up with textbooks that conflate Pakistani nationalism with Islamist exclusivism.
Anti-Western sentiment and a sense of collective victimhood were cultivated as a substitute for serious debate on social or economic policy. Militant groups were given free rein, originally with American support, to resist the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and later became an instrument of Pakistani regional influence there and in Indian-occupied Kashmir.
Pakistan’s return to democracy, after the elections of 2008, offered hope. But the elected government has since been hobbled by domestic political infighting and judicial activism on every issue except extremism and terrorism.
Before Mr. Musharraf was ousted, a populist lawyers’ movement successfully challenged his firing of Supreme Court justices. The lawyers’ willingness to confront Mr. Musharraf in his last days raised hopes of a new era. But over the last four years, the Court has spent most of its energy trying to dislodge the government by insisting on reopening cases of alleged corruption from the 1990s. During the same period, no significant terrorist leader has been convicted, and many have been set free by judges who overtly sympathize with their ideology.
This has happened because the lawyers’ movement split into two factions after Mr. Musharraf’s fall: those emphasizing the rule of law and those seeking to use the judiciary as a rival to elected leaders.
Asma Jahangir, who helped lead the lawyers’ movement, has become a critic of the courts, accusing them of overstepping their constitutional mandate and falling under the influence of the security establishment. And Aitzaz Ahsan, who represented the Supreme Court’s chief justice during the lawyers’ showdown with Mr. Musharraf, is now Prime Minister Gilani’s lawyer in the contempt-of-court case — a clear indication of the political realignment that has taken place.
Meanwhile, Pakistan’s raucous media, whose hard-won freedom is crucial for the success of democracy, has done little to help generate support for eliminating extremism and fighting terrorism. The Supreme Court, conservative opposition parties and the news media insist that confronting alleged incompetence and corruption in the current government is more important than turning Pakistan away from Islamist radicalism.
While fighting Pakistan’s endemic corruption is vital, the media and judiciary have helped redirect attention away from the threat of jihadist ideology by constantly targeting the governing party — a convenient situation for the intelligence services, which would prefer to keep the spotlight on the civilian government rather than on the militant groups they have historically supported.
Convicting the dozens of terrorists released by Pakistani courts should be a greater priority for the country’s judiciary than scoring points against the elected executive branch. And the Pakistani media should be more focused on asking why those deemed terrorists internationally are celebrated as heroes at home.
Until their priorities shift, the empty pronouncements of our leaders against terrorism and the sacrifices of our soldiers in battle with militants will not suffice to change the nation’s course.
Husain Haqqani, a professor at Boston University, was Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States from 2008 to 2011.
The pacification model that worked in Iraq can work in the Swat Valley
Newly elected politicians want to end extremism, not use it as bait for US funding
In its 60 years of independence, Pakistan has never changed its government through an election. Monday’s election results offer an opportunity for Pakistanis to change that aspect of their history. Notwithstanding considerable manipulation beforehand, the people voted overwhelmingly against Pervez Musharraf.
Almost every candidate who served in Musharraf’s government lost. So did all major leaders of the King’s Party Musharraf cobbled together soon after taking power in a 1999 military coup. The Islamists used by Musharraf as bogeymen to garner western support were also trounced.
Pakistan’s all powerful army, now under the command of General Ashfaq Kayani, is beginning to distance itself from politics. The army’s refusal to side with Musharraf’s political allies sealed their fate. Now, the army must help Pakistan back on the constitutional path by undoing the arbitrary constitutional amendments decreed by Musharraf as army chief a few days before relinquishing his command.
The depth of opposition to Musharraf, coupled with his tendency to change or break rules to stay in power, had raised serious doubts that Musharraf would manipulate the election results in favour of his allies. In the end, international pressure and a tendency to overestimate his own ability stayed Musharraf’s hand.
That does not mean, however, that Musharraf would not try now and manipulate the situation again to cling to power. That would be a terrible and disastrous mistake. Some members of the Bush administration have repeatedly described Musharraf as an indispensable ally in the war against terrorism. Economic and military assistance from the US and other western countries has been crucial for Musharraf’s political survival thus far and has probably contributed to his arrogance and hubris.
This might be the moment for Musharraf’s western backers to help him understand that annulment or alteration of the election results will only plunge Pakistan deeper into chaos.
Pakistan already faces an Al-Qaeda backed insurgency along its border with Afghanistan, which is spilling into other parts of the country. Any attempt by Musharraf to insist on retaining absolute power, rather than allowing opposition leaders Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari to return Pakistan to normal constitutional governance would only anger the vast majority of Pakistanis who have just voted for moderate anti-terrorist parties. The ensuing chaos could strengthen the violent Islamist insurgents.
Musharraf was not on the ballot on Monday but the election was all about his fate, and that of Pakistan. Last year, he had got himself ‘elected’ president by Pakistan’s outgoing parliament, itself chosen through a dubious election in 2002, and fired 60 per cent of superior court judges to forestall judicial review of the presidential election.
Election results show that Pakistan’s two major opposition parties, the pro-western centre-left Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the centre-right Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N), together have secured an outright majority in the National Assembly and Musharraf’s allies have been wiped out. Even if he remains president, he would no longer remain the most powerful man in Pakistan.
Apart from failing in combating terrorism, Musharraf’s government has squandered goodwill through its arbitrary actions against the political opposition and judiciary. The economic achievements of the last eight years have benefitted only a small sliver of the country’s 160 million people.
The election campaign was marred by violence, which the government blames on terrorists. But the targets of violence have been the secular opposition parties — the most notable victim being Benazir Bhutto. Opposition politicians justifiably expressed doubts as to why the terrorists have not attacked pro-Musharraf groups given that he is the man supposedly fighting them.
Musharraf would have damaged his diminishing credibility further if he had rigged the results and then suppressed likely protests by force. Losing the election might actually be better for him — and Pakistan. Now he must work out an honourable exit.
The two parties that have emerged with popular support from this election should get full support from the international community. Democracy might prove more effective in combating terrorism than the propping up of a discredited and despised dictator.
This article appeared in Indian Express on February 20, 2008
In 60 years as an independent country, Pakistan has never changed its government through an election. Monday’s election results offer an opportunity for Pakistanis to change that aspect of history. Notwithstanding considerable manipulation beforehand, the people voted overwhelmingly against their highly unpopular ruler Pervez Musharraf. Almost every candidate who served in Musharraf’s government lost. So did all major leaders of the King’s Party Musharraf cobbled together with the help of his security services soon after taking power in a 1999 military coup. The Islamists used by Musharraf as bogeymen to garner western support were also trounced.
Pakistan’s all powerful army, now under the command of General Ashfaq Kiyani, is beginning to distance itself from politics. The army’s refusal to side with Musharraf’s political allies sealed their fate. Now, the army must help Pakistan back on the constitutional path by undoing the arbitrary constitutional amendments decreed by Musharraf as army chief a few days before relinquishing his command.
The depth of opposition to Musharraf, coupled with his tendency to change or break rules to stay in power, had raised serious doubts that Musharraf would manipulate the election results in favour of his allies. In the end, international pressure and a tendency to over-estimate his own ability stayed Musharraf’s hand.
That does not mean, however, that Musharraf would not try now and manipulate the situation again to cling to power. That would be a terrible and disastrous mistake. Some members of the Bush administration have repeatedly described Musharraf as an indispensable ally in the war against terrorism. Economic and military assistance from the United States and other western countries has been crucial for Musharraf’s political survival thus far and has probably contributed to his arrogance and hubris.
This might be the moment for Musharraf’s western backers to help him understand that annulment or alteration of the election results will only plunge Pakistan deeper into chaos.
Pakistan already faces an Al Qaida backed insurgency along its border with Afghanistan, which is spilling over into other parts of the country. Any attempt by Musharraf to insist on retaining absolute power, rather than allowing opposition leaders Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari to return Pakistan to normal constitutional governance would only anger the vast majority of Pakistanis who have just voted for moderate anti-terrorist parties. The ensuing chaos could strengthen the violent insurgents.
Musharraf was not on the ballot on Monday but the election was all about his fate, and that of Pakistan. Late last year, he had himself “elected” president by Pakistan’s outgoing parliament, which was itself chosen through a dubious election in 2002, and fired 60 per cent of superior court judges to forestall judicial review of the presidential election.
Majority
Election results show that Pakistan’s two major opposition parties, the pro-western centre-left Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the centre-right Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N), together have secured a majority in the 342 seat National Assembly and Musharraf’s allies have been virtually wiped out.
Even if he remains president, he would no longer remain the most powerful man in Pakistan.
Musharraf has said in the past that he would rather step down than face the ignominy of being impeached by the newly elected parliament, which would be possible if the anti-Musharraf parties’ tally of seats in parliament reaches two-thirds of the total membership.
The election was marred by violence, which the government blames on terrorists. But the targets of violence have been the secular opposition parties – the most notable victim being Benazir Bhutto who became an icon of democracy for Pakistanis after her assassination on December 27. Opposition politicians justifiably expressed doubts as to why the terrorists have not attacked pro-Musharraf groups given that he is the man supposedly fighting them.
He would have damaged his diminishing credibility further if he had rigged the results and then proceeded to suppress likely protests by force. Losing the election might actually be better for him – and Pakistan. Now he must accept the consequence of defeat and work out an honourable exit.
The two parties that have emerged with popular support from this election should get full support from the international community in restoring democracy to Pakistan, which might prove more effective in combating terrorism than continuing to prop up a discredited and despised dictator.
This article appeared in Gulf News on February 20, 2008