Raza Habib Raja
Professor Philip Oldenburg is a professor of political science in Columbia University and author of the book titled India, Pakistan, and democracy: solving the puzzle of divergent paths. As an academic, Subcontinent has been his prime area of political research. A few months ago, he was invited to Cornell University where I was privileged to hear his views on a very interesting topic which was why India and Pakistan despite being apparently similar in history and culture have taken divergent paths as far as democracy and role of military are concerned.

First of all Professor Philip made an interesting statement that India’s successful evolution as a democracy is not a “normal” phenomenon but rather an exception whereas Pakistan has evolved the way most of the third world countries with similar characteristics are likely to evolve. Now this contradicts with most of the stuff I hear about the reasons as to why India and Pakistan have taken different trajectories. I have mostly heard that democracy has not evolved simply for the sole reason because military has not allowed it to evolve. Explanation for the difference in India and Pakistan has always been pinned down to only deep conspiracies of the “deep state” against political class.
Now this analysis at least partially disagrees with the overwhelmingly prevalent and rather simplistic explanation according to which democracy does not function solely because Pakistan’s army has always been conspiring against it whereas in India the armed forces have decided to respect the political template of the government.

According to Professor Philip, a country with low literacy rate, weak industrial base and with a colonial legacy is often expected to take the similar trajectory as of Pakistan. He then cited many examples of the countries where military coups have taken place and the institution enjoys great power and privileges.
However, he made an interesting remark that Pakistan in many ways had performed worse and while many other countries (like Bangladesh and Turkey) are gradually shaping towards the ascendency of political class and strengthening of democracy, in Pakistan the political developments are pointing towards the other direction.

So what makes Pakistan a similar and yet in the longer run a “different” case as far as the role of military is concerned? Why the neighbouring India is an exception and why could not Pakistan follow the same trajectory despite the fact that it was carved out of the same British Empire?
Well the reasons are complicated and cannot be solely just attributed to the conspiracies of the military. Besides trying to understand as to why military intervenes, it should be worthwhile to also dwell as to how it is actually able to intervene. In Pakistan’s case the reasons are rooted in:
1) its general cultural and political traits such as low literacy, rural dominance and lack of developed stabilizing as well as independent institutions like Judiciary,
2) the history of Pakistan movement and its early years after coming into being
3) chaos when civilians are in power and their inability to take a decisive action when opportunity presented
4) Urban middleclass impatience and excessive emphasis on “order” which has provided armed interventions a semblance of support
5) Manipulations by the army and the intelligence apparatus

Firstly, one has to understand that military in weak third world country is often the only well-disciplined, centralized and sophisticated institution. It has sophisticated instruments of violence and has a top down chain of command which is seldom if ever broken. Particularly in countries where democratic institution are either nascent or democracy after its introduction leads to chaos, military due to its ability to bring “stability” and restore order often intervenes. Third world has thus witnessed a number of coups and Pakistan by no stretch of imagination is an exception. However, military interventions by no stretch of imagination are good developments, though in the context of tremulous political cultures, understandable .

Military once it intervenes to overthrow the political government becomes a political stakeholder and from that point onwards, takes steps particularly in the constitutional and legal realm, which solidify its acquired political status, powers and privileges. Of course the military is not accountable to the electorate and therefore in the longer run is quite insulated from the normal pressures which a political government has to go through. Military rule seriously undermines the democratic evolution and does not allow the political culture to deepen. It depoliticizes the populace and also creates a state which is not responsive to its people.

In Pakistan unfortunately the genesis of the military rule is actually in the way the Pakistan movement shaped up and the complex interplay of the dynamics of the movement with cultural and political characteristics of the region which eventually became Pakistan.

Compared to Indian freedom movement, Pakistan’s independence movement became a mass movement at a very late stage. Whereas Congress’s birth was in 1885 and it became a mass movement particularly due Gandhi’s efforts by 1920s, Muslim League even in early 1940s had not been successful to garner the same kind of mass support. Ironically the areas where it was actually popular were areas which subsequently became part of India.

It was only in the second half of the decade of 1940s that the Muslim League started to make real appeal to the people of the areas which subsequently became Pakistan.

Muslim League did not attain the political maturity the way Congress did which had gone through several generations of leaders and the political culture was institutionalized in the party as well as the movement headed by it.

This is an important distinction which shaped the respective roles of the military in both the countries. In India the political class was dominant from the beginning and moreover the public perception of the army was not of a saviour as the Indian army had served loyally under the British empire . The entrenched political culture ensured that Indian political landscape made a smooth transition from a movement into a functioning democracy from the word go. Moreover, Nehru remained at the political helm in the initial years providing the much needed political stability under democratic umbrella. Military was never in a position to stage a coup both because the chaos-which often precedes the military coup and at least is the justification the first time- was never there and secondly the army did have an “image” issue due to its close association with the colonial rule. Nehru’s revered and towering status also prevented the development of any militaristic bonapartism.

Pakistan on the other hand was founded in an area where had already been militarized as most of the recruitment was taking place from so called “Martial Races” of Punjab and what is now Khyber Pukhtunkhawa. Moreover the state apparatus was stronger in Punjab and local politicians had to rely a lot on the civil bureaucracy in order to get things “done”. The reliance of political class on the state apparatus in areas falling under West Pakistan was much greater than in areas which later became India.

So when Pakistan came into being, the local politicians, particularly in the rural areas, had already become too entrenched in the practice of looking towards state apparatus to gain privileges and powers rather than rather than through political mechanism consisting of parties, manifestoes and ideology. In rural Punjab, this practice with varying degrees continues to this date.

When Pakistan came into being the Muslim League despite having gained support in the last two years was still not a deeply rooted political party in the area which was West Pakistan. The main leaders of the League actually belonged to the areas which were in India and when they came to Pakistan, they were without the same kind of support. The nationalist movement actually brought leaders in West Pakistan whose roots had been left behind. In addition, Jinnah through charismatic did not live long and during his one year at the helm also did not do much in line with democratic norms. His one year rule was as a Governor General and was highly personalized.

In the initials years army was needed again and again both at the external front (Kashmir front) as well as the internal front (riots of 1953) to restore order. During these times while army’s role strengthened, the political landscape was fraught with chaos and repeated change of governments. The political class in the absence of a stabilizing political leader (Liaquat Ali Khan was shot dead in1951) and a political infrastructure underpinned by proper political culture, could not gain strength.

While government heads kept on changing, the Chief of Army Staff continued to gain power and moreover whereas in India the Chief of Army staff position witnessed at least five different individuals, Pakistan persisted with Ayub Khan. Repeated changes of governments and chaotic situation provided the impetus for the military intervention and when finally military intervened; there was actually a sigh of relief.

The military intervention of 1958 is extremely important as it initiated several things. First, military’s image among the urban middle class (at that time small in number but powerful due to its monopoly over education, and white collared job market) as a saviour was created. From that point onwards, the middleclass, particularly the urban middleclass has seen army in that light particularly when during short stings of democracy the situation gets chaotic. It actually expects army to intervene. Secondly, army’s self-image also enhanced to include itself as the ultimate custodian of the political stability as well. Third, it gave the loudest signal that army was a definite stakeholder and in fact more powerful than all others. So from that point onwards, political class had to factor in army more than any other stakeholder for its own survival.

Although Ayub was personally perhaps a secular but increasingly the army was tutored in Islam in order to provide it with an ideological fabric to bolster its combative zeal. Increasingly the army also started to see itself as the ultimate custodian of the ideological frontier also. It was in fact during the Ayub tenure that army also started to make overtures to the religious outfits for both external and a domestic objectives, a trend which over time has only increased .

The ascendency of army given the unique circumstances of Independence, earlier turmoil, the “expectations” of the urban middleclass, and the work done during Ayub era to solidify its status as political power, was difficult to check but nevertheless there were several opportunities which could have been availed.

Given army’s “respect” as a saviour, the best time to curtail army’s role as a political force is at the time when it has been dishonoured or humiliated. However, for that the political class besides removing the head of the armed forces also needs to exercise maturity in its own conduct. This is essential in order to dispel army’s potential role as the “saviour” of the last resort, a role which is largely perceived by the urban middleclass.

Unfortunately Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto due to his personal conduct and “I am above the law “ attitude squandered the chance. Bhutto ruled in a capricious manner, and used security forces to terrorize his rivals. Moreover, he alienated the urban middleclass too much due to his personal conduct and dictatorial traits. He rigged the elections and once again it was urban middleclass which was in complete resentment as ZAB had taken several steps to displease them and supplanted those with his style of rule. The “movement” against the election rigging was primarily an urban bourgeoisie movement and during those times there was a resurgence of army’s image also. The leaders of the movement were in fact giving overtures to the armed forces to intervene and “rescue” Pakistan. Army, at that time while apparently supporting Bhutto, was at the same time also in contact with the opposition and was cleverly plotting a coup. When army finally intervened on that fateful night, it was not only in accordance with its own institutional interests but also the interests of the urban middleclass.

This point is essential here because the urban middleclass actually has historically provided the armed interventions a semblance of popular support. Although urban middleclass is not monolithic and it would incorrect to assume that it can actually think like a unified orgasm but by and large this class is anti-democratic and apolitical in its orientation. This class is upwardly mobile, prefers stability over chaos and has been successfully tutored in a nationalist brand of civic nationalism. In Pakistan’s case the brand of civic nationalism has Islam as an important ingredient coupled with inherent negation towards plurality. Civic nationalism here tries to promote a strong centre and homogeneity or oneness. This brand of civic nationalism is strongest in the urban middle class as it is cultivated chiefly through education and then further reinforced by mass media. Further on this brand of nationalism also places strong emphasis on Pakistan’s place in the Islamic world and also in the global context.

Army, particularly the officer cadre is chiefly drawn from the middleclass and its ideological thrust is quite identical to that of the urban middleclass. So besides the deep suspicion about “corrupt” politicians and “chaotic” democracy, another major reason that urban middleclass likes army is its own ideological thrust resonates closely with that of army. Consequently despite major blunders army’s respect remains high. Even when it has suffered a blow it has buoyed again.

In some ways, it is the expectations of the urban middleclass and the pedestal on which it by and large holds the army that the latter finds additional incentives to keep a “check” on politicians.

And then there is the case of almost complete ownership of foreign policy by the army which was taken over during Zia’s time. Of course Zia was the head of the government also but the espionage activities of the army and ISI during the Afghan war made it the most important stakeholder. Once Benazir came into power she quickly had to resign to the fact that foreign policy was not an area where a civilian government could have much leeway.

Over the years, even under the façade of civilian governments, army has been running the show. Foreign policy particularly its terms of engagement with “foes” like India and “friends” like USA has become the sole domain of the army. It is from here that army draws its most strength and even its reason for existence and it won’t allow any sort of “interference” from the civilian government.

Over the years, army has ensured that Pakistan double deals with the United States, constantly adopts a hostile posture towards India and pursues the policy of strategic depth in Afghanistan. For these objectives, military and its intelligence apparatus has constantly courted militant organizations which at times have gone out of control like a Frankenstein monster only to at times turn against itself.

It is here that military simply does not listen to the concerns of the civilian governments and in fact won’t hesitate to pressurize it through back door means and even mount a coup. In 1999, it deeply embarrassed Nawaz Sharif government by initiating Kargil war while he was trying to make peace initiatives towards India. And it is agitated against Zardari led government for being too cosy with Washington (though these charges are hardly credible).

Unfortunately USA has also more or less accepted the dominance of military and has adopted the tactic of directly dealing with the military at times bypassing the civilian governments. And of course all the military dictatorships have been supported by the US which found it easier and convenient to deal with them and were ready to ignore “trivialities” like democracy.
In fact Hussain Haqqani’s masterpiece ( one of the most extraordinary books I have ever read) also makes the same point that USA in its desire of convenience found it easier to deal with military.

Turning a blind eye policy adopted by the USA has eventually resulted in military being the party they have to negotiate with even when it is not cooperating and indulging in double games. Civilian governments virtually are irrelevant.

It is hold over foreign policy and terms of engagement with critical countries like India, United States and Afghanistan which military guards even more than its finances. The entire intelligence apparatus is dedicated towards this end and if a civilian government tries to assert its authority in this domain, it pays the price.

Can we break this hold? Yes, it can be broken but for that politicians too have to show maturity and respect rule of law. They also need to show unity instead of cheap opportunism when the opportunity to weaken military presents itself. My mind immediately goes back to what happened when Osama Bin Laden was killed. Instead of having a united front, Mr. Zardari was keen on creating a rift between army and Nawaz Sharif for short sighted political gains. That opportunity was lost. And subsequently Mr. Sharif actually went to Supreme Court in Memo scandal despite the fact that the military establishment was targeting him also and if democracy were to be derailed, he too will be a loser. However, in Mr. Nawaz sharif’s head nothing mattered more than Zardari’s scalp.

We cannot wrestle away the power unless we show unity and an unshakable belief in democracy. However that belief in democracy is also underpinned by the way major political actors govern when in power and also engage with each other. Urban middleclass does not love army just for the sake of loving it. It likes army (rightly or wrongly is a separate issue) because it restores order and since it is politically insulated therefore gives an impression of merit. Army needs chaos as a reason to intervene. It needs political governments to fail to ensure its hegemony. It wants political class to be riddled with internal rifts.

What the political parties (the two main parties) can do is to at least ensure that they govern properly and ensure rule of law. They need to be united on the fact that they would not conspire against each other and will not try to seek army’s help for derailing the other.

Remember that it is no longer feasible for the army to directly rule the country and therefore the chances of an old fashioned coup are very rare. The chances of a complete roll back of the system are slim and therefore the political parties can take decisive steps provided they are united and get their act together.

1. Gillani will keep his seat : Yes I said it , and how much you hate for me this , but reality won’t change , Gillani will survive the ordeals of the supreme court, unlike musharaff he is a politician and not an administrator. Though how much we wish he would have been an effective administrator but he is an effective politician. Sidelining sovereignty , Aspirations of the common man  , Gillani rides on a strong and contend parliament and will need some miracle to knock him off his perch.
2. Inflation will rise : Yes I don’t know the stats , but I know our rulers well enough. Inflation will increase despite some good economic conditions emerging. How will you expect the government to lower prices at the expense of their own prado’s etc ( Gillani I still remember that you promised to use a cultux and then later u went for a corolla but you never mentioned land Cruiser ).
3. Hina Rabbani Khar will succeed where others failed : Khar is talented , there is no doubt about that. Though she lacks the persona of Qureshi and his precedents , she brings the women edge to the table. Her Russia visit will succeed and ties with India will gradually improve. Though a slight problem might be her carelessness to the issue of sovereignty.
4. Imran the game changer : Now this is the most difficult to predict. Imran’s khan rise to fame has left many in the parliament wondering about their future. Especially after the inclusion of hashmi , Tahreek e Insaf has emerged as a big party . But with only Imran taking the top most position with no family members , one must wonder about the loyality of Qureshi , Swati , Tareen and other . For 2012 , I predict a huge sponsored propaganda against Imran on the media . However, if khan shows patience and some political instincts , he is well placed at the top slot for the PM position next elections .
5.  Qadri will be freed : As grim as it may look to the liberals , I also don’t want this to happen. Though I am not a huge fan of Taseer and blame him and his party for the current state of affairs , but I have no proof of blasphemy on him and neither will the court. However , some sponsored elements will ensure that Qadri survives . I am not against Qadri , had Qadri killed for the love of Prophet , then he did one of the most noble things (sorry liberals ) but I have no proof against Taseer. Qadri should die for some and shaheed for others . Let Allah decide his fate and same goes for Taseer.
6. Shahbaz Taseer / Shehrbano Taseer will enter Punjab Politics : PPP is in deep troubles and they need a savior and what better than those teary Shehrbano eyes. And as her tears flows , so will the hearts of the common man in Lahore and some name saving for PPPP atleast.
7. Musharraf will return to realize he is Mr. Who : As angry as it may make the APML workers , but the reality is whenever Musharraf returns he will be disappointed . Though he was an amazing administrator but his shortcomings on political front especially on Laal Masjid issue,Supreme court and that ridiculous NRO will hurt him deeply. My advice to Mushi , stay there bro J
8. Misbah- The Man : Yes I said it to all the afridi fanatics , Misbah is and will be the king . This year expect more stability more wins and more ‘TUKS’ from Misbah as he cruises Pakistani Cricket team to the number one spot . Do expect a couple of resignations as well .
9. One more Pakistani will break the Olevels / Alevels record : I never get the fascination of giving ridiculous amount of Alevels Olevels Papers . Seriously , what does one achieve ,  ultimately a good student and one with 24 – 25 As end up in the same university . Oh sorry I forgot Unless you are Mr. Ali Moeen  Nawazish , you will be paid to represent the youth which despises you for increasing their parents expectation .suddenly 9 As in Olevels isn’t good enough
10. And Lastly ; this is not a prediction this is a fact that  I know , Fawad Khan , that famous husband in the slowest soap opera of all time will emerge as a major star of Pakistani Industry , By 2013, Pakistan will have its own Shahrukh Khan .

By Harry Pasha:

By Shahnaz Khan:

The purpose of this article is to highlight the impact of the religious laws in Pakistan as they are being currently interpreted and implemented without going into the finer nuances of either the law or the religion. These laws come into limelight from time to time for brief periods only when a famous person is involved or if there are political implications.  Once the issue disappears from the front pages of the news media the whole thing is forgotten.  But the fact is that these laws affect ordinary citizens on a daily basis.  I want to make the point that these laws, implemented without using common sense or taking the present day realities and the changing nature and circumstances of the crime, have become vehicles for promoting injustice, threats to the peace and harmony of the society, tools for political expediency, and suppression of critical thinking.

On promoting injustice: Qisas and Diyat laws are a prime example of this, being used to the detriment of the weaker members of the society that is women and the poor. Let’s first take the issue of women. Honor killings, disfigurement and mutilation of women by cutting of their body parts or throwing acid on them because someone’s “honor” is threatened are common occurrences.  Under the above mentioned law it is the “wali” of the victim who is authorized to negotiate the terms of punishment with the murderer.  He (since it is almost always a male) has the right to forgive the murderer and accept monetary compensation.  But the irony is that in most cases, wali himself (or those closely related to him) is the murderer, being the husband, the father or the brother etc.  Now does it make sense to have the murderer dictate the terms of his punishment?  It is like investing the powers of the judge, jury and the executioner in the same person who is also the offender, giving him the right to make all the decisions.  Is that the spirit of the Islamic law?

In the case of disfigurement and mutilation, the victim herself (since most of the time it a woman) should have the right to negotiate and agree to the terms of punishment.  Has there ever been a court decision where a woman was authorized to throw acid on the face of the offender or cut off his nose as a punishment?  If this is not a mockery of justice, what else is?

In fact an even more sinister aspect of this whole situation is that men, family or tribe have been granted the right to impose their will on women in the name of honor.  This is the basis of honor crimes.  That is why killing of a woman is justified because, “she deserved it” because she broke the so called moral and ethical code of the society.   This assumption, this mind set, this atrocious behavior in the name of tradition, culture and religion is a horrifying aspect of “our values and norms” that we never tire of flaunting and praising, because these values make us better than those ‘immoral’ westerners. Really?  There is a need to challenge this.  What is honor and who defines it? Why do women have to give up their decision making powers, happiness, dignity, and freedom to save the so called honor of men, family, tribe etc. etc.?  It has become honorable to kill and maim women and dishonorable to respect them, their bodies and their humanity.  If this is not a skewed logic, what else is?  And if this is not denigration of women, what else is? And we never tire of telling the world how Islam has elevated the status of women and how she has been protected!

Now let’s see how this law affects the poor.  If the victim is poor and the offender rich, he/she not only has the financial wherewithal but in Pakistan also has the added political, social and legal clout to coerce the victim’s wali into accepting the monetary compensation instead of paying with his/her life for the perpetrated crime. But what if the victim is rich and the offender is poor?  Do I have to explain what will happen?  Religion which claims to bring economic and legal justice is in fact failing the poor on both accounts.  Can there be any more atrocious consequences of a law?  Can there be a law that is more discriminatory against the poor?  If this is not a distortion of justice to the utmost, what else is? And if all of the above is not promoting injustice, what else is?

On threat to peace and harmony:  Whenever a law is passed in the name of religion, it becomes nearly impossible to change or modify it even if subsequently it becomes apparent that it is being misused, has become a contrivance for aggression and is actually causing harm to the society by disturbing peace and tranquility.  This is evident from the blasphemy laws as applied in Pakistan, which are being used to harass the religious minorities, for personal revenge, or for political motives.  Even when the accused is not convicted by the court, he or she faces a constant threat to his or her life.  At times people feel free to punish the alleged offender without due course of the law.  The person is presumed guilty unless proven innocent rather than the other way around.  Even minor and unintentional actions are interpreted in the harshest way possible thus leaving very little room for justice to be carried out fairly and impartially.  Unfortunately this, like all other religious issues, has become a political tool to be used to inflame people’s emotions (which are, regrettably, highly inflammable).   It has come to the point where even an utterance of unintended phrase, any discussion about the problems surrounding this issue, or any mention of further probing this legitimacy and authenticity of the law can cost one his or her life.  If this is not disturbing peace and tranquility of the society, what else is?

As James Baldwin, a black American novelist and play writer and a leading voice in the civil rights movement, said, “If one really wishes to know how the justice is administered in a country, one does not question the policemen, the lawyers, the judges, or the protected members of the middle class. One goes to the unprotected—those, precisely, who need the law’s protection most! —and listens to their testimony.”  So, the flag bearers of the religion, the rulers and the politicians, go and listen to the women, the religious minorities, and the poor and find out if justice is being administered in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan!

On use for political expediency:  Since religious laws are amenable to different interpretations, they have a tendency to become tools in the hands of dictators, other autocrats and selfish political motives.  Wasn’t the Qisas and Diyat ordinance of 1990 signed by Gen Zia for political expediency? Didn’t various political entities i.e. the government, the religious parties, and the army use and justify the Qisas and Diyat law to their own advantage during Raymond Davis fiasco?  Aren’t there enough historical examples and cases where religion was used to support the decisions of the ruler rather than guiding it?  Why do we refuse to learn from them?  There always have been and always will be scholars who are willing to comply with the demands of the authority.  The alliance of religion with the power will drown any dissenting voice.  It has been so in all religions and Islam is no different.

On suppression of free thought:  The last point I would like to make is that the danger lies not only in the specific laws but also the fact that when the word religion is attached to any law, rule or issue it immediately becomes off limits to any further discussion or debate among the very people whose lives will be affected by it.  The doors of reason are closed.  Questioning is not allowed. Any debate becomes a prisoner to rigid and fixed parameters set by the self proclaimed scholars, many of whom have vested interests and people are forced to suspend their intellectual faculties.  And gradually it becomes their second nature to accept whatever edicts they are asked to follow.

Plato said, “Justice in the life and conduct of the state is possible only as first it resides in the hearts and souls of the citizens.”  But when the hearts and souls of citizens have given up the quest for justice because an intellectual decay has set in due to suppression of free thought, is there still hope?

Benazir Bhutto on her arrival in Karachi in Oct, 2007. Photo: Beena Sarwar

It’s four years since those pistol shots and bomb blast in Pindi’s Liaquat Bagh ended the life of Pakistan’s most promising politician and hope for democracy. There is no one to replace Benazir Bhutto but her legacy lives on in many ways. This is the first legitimately elected government ever in Pakistan to remain in office for as long as it has – and it will be the first to complete its tenure if allowed to do so and hand over power to the next elected government. This political process is essential to move Pakistan out of a quagmire that has taken decades to push us into. There are no quick fixes, no magic wands that can change things overnight. What’s important is the process and at least that is under way – thanks to Benazir Bhutto.

Thanks to YouTube, archival footage is now available to remind us of her legacy. In his moving article on Benazir, Saroop Ijaz refers to this interview of her’s soon after Gen. Zia’s death, in which she outlines her political vision of looking ahead, without vindictiveness. He begins the piece with lines that Benazir Bhutto recited, quoting from Dr Khalid Javed Jan’s iconic poem on her return to Pakistan in 1986: “Mazhab kay jo byopairi hain, woh sab se baree bemaari hain…. In jhute or makkaron se, mahzab kay thekedaron say, mein baaghi hoon, mein baaghi hoon” (The traders of religion are the worst disease, I rebel from these liars and hypocrites).

Complete lyrics at this link.

Cameraman Arif Khan (seated 1st right) was one of those killed at the bomb blast at Karsaz. Photo: courtesy Asadullah Khan

When Benazir arrived in Pakistan in October 2007, the air of anticipation was infectious. I ended up riding out to the airport on the back of a motorbike, passing hordes of celebrating people (see my cell phone photos) and pushing my way through a huge mob, past her ‘janesars’, to the top of her truck with my colleague Absar Alam who interviewed her for Geo TV (thanks to Naheed Khan who invited us up top). This was just hours before the bomb blast that killed over 180 people and injured scores of others, including Benazir, as her convoy passed Karsaz Road in Karachi.

The next morning to everyone’s astonishment, despite her own trauma (ears oozing blood from the bomb blast), she breached security protocols to visit the injured in hospital, and by afternoon was patiently presiding over a chaotic press conference at Bilawal House. The place was ill equipped to deal with the explosion of TV channels that had taken place over the past few years. At one point, our eyes met and she smiled in recognition of the absurd situation.

Barely two months later she was dead – literally having paid with her life for democracy. I was in Lahore then. As we mourned together, Hina Jillani’s observation on how much Benazir had changed during her years of exile has stayed with me. She looked different, positively radiant, with a simple plait replacing the old bouffant hairdo, no heavy make-up, her by now trademark white dupatta draped over her head rather than the earlier matching shawls and jackets with padded shoulders. She was no longer arrogant, she listened, she was willing to learn.

Benazir Bhutto giving her first interview to a Pakistani journalist on her return in Oct, 2007. Photo: Beena Sarwar

But she remained consistent in her adherence to peaceful, non-violent, constitutional means to bring democracy back to Pakistan. This was clear even in the early years when she campaigned around the world against Gen. Zia’s military regime and came across enthusiastic young turks talked of revolution or fighting the army regime with guns. Her fighting spirit remained evident in her insistence on contesting elections under the Musharraf regime (as she did during the Zia years), even as many progressive liberals urged her to boycott. Her answer: “Boycott, and then what?”

She prevailed upon her former arch-rival Nawaz Sharif, who was dithering on the boycott issue, to agree to contest elections. Imran Khan in his wisdom, stayed out of the fray and in the political wilderness (until suddenly being projected into prominence earlier this year).

To those who tried to push her into supporting the individual over the institution (with reference to the restoration of the judiciary), Benazir wrote: “I remain committed to the freedom and vitality of democracy as the great Quaid-e-Awam had dreamt of. Yes, it is true that you have to deal sometimes with the devil if you can’t face it but everything is a means to an end. I have great respect and admiration for the Judiciary both bench and bar. I have great respect for individuals both present and ex. Ultimately, however, it is the institution that has to decide collectively what course to take. I hope this clarifies my viewpoint.” (Dec 3, 2007)

The devil of course was Musharraf and the deal was the much-maligned National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) without which she and other politicians could not have returned to Pakistan to participate in politics.

Lawyers' movement: PPP and ANP workers took the heaviest casualties on May 12, 2007 in Karachi. HRCP report: http://bit.ly/uv0uV4

As Marvi Sirmed writes in her heartfelt personal tribute remembering Benazir today, being a woman never hindered her,

“so much so that when the forces opposing her tried to use her biology against her, she turned it around. When she was expecting Bilawal, they announced elections around the dates they thought she would be in maternity. I cannot forget her coming to the political rallies with her intravenous drip in her hands… When she was expecting Bakhtawar during her premiership, the crisis was once again carefully chosen to coincide with the dates of her delivery. She did not make herself absent from her office for more than 48 hours.

“All through her political life, she struggled against the hegemony of the oppressive deep state that used every jape that they could, and from right-wing rhetoric that was nauseatingly misogynist and anti-people.”

Despite the hurdles, despite being always under siege – “We were in government but not in power” – she would say – she achieved much. Her son Bilawal lists some of these accomplishments in his tributeto his mother.

Benazir Bhutto with her children visiting Asif Zardari in prison. Photo: Larkana Times

What we do know is that there are 86,000 more schools because of Shaheed Benazir Bhutto. That, under her government foreign investment quadrupled; energy production doubled; exports boomed. Under her government, 100,000 female health workers fanned out across the country, bringing health care, nutrition, pre and postnatal care, to millions of our poorest citizens. It was under her government that women were admitted as judges to the nation’s courts, that women’s police departments were established to help women who suffered from domestic violence and a women’s bank was established to give micro loans to women to start small businesses. It was under Shaheed Benazir Bhutto’s leadership that cell phones, fibre optics and international media were introduced, and the Pakistani software industry blossomed. And it was on her very first day as prime minister, that all political prisoners were freed, unions legalised and the press uncensored. It was an amazing record of accomplishment, made even more remarkable by the constraint of aborted tenures, by constant pressure from a hostile establishment and presidents with the power to sack elected governments.”

The hostile establishment remains hostile but the President no longer has the power to sack an elected government. This is one of the current elected government’s several achievements that tend to get overshadowed by the explosive (no pun intended) situation around. Other achievements include the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP), the Aghaz-e-Haqooq-e-Balochistan Package, increase of minimum wages from Rs 4,600 to Rs 7,000 a month, political rights to Gilgit-Baltistan, extension of the Political Parties Act to FATA, bills for women’s rights and empowerment, the 18th and 19th constitutional amendments (that include getting rid of Zia’s clause that allowed the President to dissolve Parliament), the combined NFC Award (moving towards provincial autonomy), signing Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline agreement despite American opposition, forcing the Americans to tie aid to Pakistan to the continuation of democracy with the ‘Kerry-Lugar Bill’ (another reason the military hates this government), kicking out the Saudi ambassador for distributing money to terrorists, expanding the Lady Health Workers programme (initiated by Benazir Bhutto), and continuing her legacy of non-vindictiveness towards political rivals and dissent. It should be a matter of pride for Pakistan that this government has not carried out any capital punishments, in line with its unofficial moratorium on executions.

The political situation remains volatile. But there are many positives to build upon. Things will not change overnight, but the process is underway. Despite the apparent unpopularity of the present government, theare is a difference this time round, given that efforts are being made to take preemptive steps to mobilise politically (for example, the Citizens’ statement on the ‘Memogate’ issue) against unconstitutional moves to topple the government. Perhaps some lessons have been learnt from the past.

“Pakistan’s nuclear assets are not safe as long as Zardari exists [Zardari ke hotay huay],” said Shah Mehmood Qureshi a couple of

Image via Wikipedia

weeks ago. This is gutter politics based upon shameless posturing. By making this claim, Qureshi has proved that he has the genes of his father who was a collaborator of General Zia, Pakistan’s version of Beelzebub.

“I will hang Zardari at the Bhaati Gate,” threatened Shahbaz Sharif. He also said, and many times indeed, “I do not accept Zardari as the president of Pakistan!” Indeed the younger Sharif has lived up to the reputation of the elder brother that he was a seed that was planted and nourished by Generals Zia and Jilani.

“The memo is against the sovereignty of Pakistan,” thundered Nawaz Sharif. Certainly, the charges against Nawaz Sharif of corruption are harmless political diversions.

“Zardari and Pakistan cannot go together,” and “as long as Zardari is the president, fair elections cannot be held in Pakistan”, Imran Khan has warned many times. This is politics sans conscience because no proof is offered to justify the warning.

Our generals are ‘impatient’ with Zardari and think he is useless (fazool, in the words of army-inspired journalists who tell what the generals are thinking of Zardari). These great generals have always been defeated by the enemy but have repeatedly conquered the ‘bloody civilians’.

“Zardari is a rotten head,” claimed King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. This comes from a man who presides over one of the most murderous religious ideologies of the modern world.

From a petty bourgeois trader pedalling fake watches to the mightiest in Pakistan, all are agreed that Zardari is the cause of all ills in Pakistan. The other night I was invited to a dinner where I had a conversation with two friends, PhDs in engineering and economics respectively, and capable professors. Echoing Mansoor Ijaz, they claimed that Zardari was in the know of the American attack on the Osama compound. According to them, “Between the Navy SEALs’ assassination of Osama and the publication of Zardari’s article in The Washington Post, the time span was only two hours. How can Zardari write and publish an article on Osama’s assassination in such a short time unless he knew what was going to happen? How can The Washington Post publish an article at such short notice when it is known that top newspapers plan days and weeks before what to publish?”

This was not the first time that I had the luck to learn about Zardari from highly educated people. During Benazir’s first stint as prime minister, Brigadier Tariq Mehmood (called TM) died because his parachute did not open. I was a teacher at that time. A few professors of history and political science affiliated with right-wing political parties claimed that Zardari had taken money from the Israelis to fix TM’s death. Takbeer, an extreme right-wing weekly published from Karachi, printed a highly suggestive article claiming that TM had requested his superiors in the army to allow him and his fellow brave officers to parachute into Israel and they would break its back (Israel ki qamar torr denge!). At that time, Zardari did not hold any office, but was, all the same, Pakistan’s prime minister’s husband.

With the above few examples in view, it is possible to do a PhD on how Zardari is blamed for everything bad that happens in Pakistan. During last year’s floods, there were rumours that the rains were caused by the Americans, and Zardari was complicit. From very young children to those whose legs are in the grave, Zardari is the perfect punching bag to release our anger and frustration. YouTube is full of short videos showing little kids singing in chorus: “Zardari aik museebat hai” (Zardari is a nuisance), and adults saying as long as Zardari is our president, Pakistan will continue to suffer. From cheating in the examinations to Pakistan’s loss to India in Mohali (did Zardari not send Gilani to Mohali with a message for the players to throw the match, or else?) to electricity outages to bad weather, the eternal leitmotif is Zardari. The only blame he has escaped is that he planned the Mumbai attack, probably because our jihadi media does not want him to do or seem to be doing anything that can bring him Allah’s ‘blessings’. This also explains why he was not named as the man behind Salmaan Taseer’s assassination. Qadri, the ‘blessed soldier of Islam’, would never like to be associated with Zardari.

The point is: what will happen if Zardari quits politics and goes into retirement? What will happen to hundreds of journalists, thousands of politicians and their various flunkies, and millions of Pakistanis? Zardari has spawned an entire genre of yellow journalism. He has never sued, jailed, or harmed anyone for levelling the basest and meanest allegations at him. Thus, in a way, he has encouraged the journalistic industry, which lives off his ‘misdeeds’.

Once Zardari is out of office, he will be sorely missed, I can assure you. Where in the world will you find a president who is incessantly and viciously demonised, but never says a thing? One media house has been publishing one shameless lie after another, but Zardari has never said a thing. Our corps commanders hold a meeting and reject the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act, but Zardari does not have them sacked for their insubordination. The Americans finish off Osama, but no general is sacked for complicity or incompetence (or both). There is not a single political prisoner in Pakistan today. But no one will give Zardari the benefit. People like Zaid Hamid openly invite the army to take over because Zardari is bad, but nothing happens to them. Can anyone cite just one example from Pakistan’s history where people got away with insulting the head of the state and the largest political party?

No one is willing to say that Zardari has done any good things. He is the only president in Pakistan’s history who has donated his eyes. But people smell a conspiracy in this too. Some of the good things Zardari has done include: (1) Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP), (2) Aghaz-e-Haqooq-e-Balochistan Package, (3) 43,800 acres of land distributed among landless peasants, (4) reinstatement of sacked employees in different government and semi-government departments, (5) minimum pay for labourers increased from Rs 4,600 to Rs 7,000, (6) political rights given to the people of Gilgit-Baltistan, (7) bills for women’s rights and empowerment, (8) 18th and 19th constitutional amendments, (9) combined NFC Award, (10) Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline agreement despite American opposition, (11) kicking out of the Saudi ambassador for distributing money to Islamist terrorists, (12) forcing the Americans to tie aid to Pakistan to the continuation of democracy (this is why the generals are mad at him), (13) devolution of governance to the provinces, and (14) extension of the Political Parties Act (PPA) to FATA.

He even ordered the government to provide legal aid to Dr Aafia Siddiqui in order to appease the religious fanatics.

Those legions of journalists, politicians, goons and blackmailers who have been acting as mafiosos during Zardari’s time will find out the difference when a non-PPP government deals with them with an iron hand for criticising it. The pseudo-knowledge and bogus truisms the media has constructed about Zardari are a cynical mix of facts and fantasies. Frenzy has triumphed over reason.

http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\12\10\story_10-12-2011_pg3_4

Related articles

• What does the Pakistan Army want now? (pakistaniaat.net)
• You: President Zardari was worried before going Dubai: Aitzaz (nation.com.pk)
• US like democracy of Zardari, Nawaz: Fazlur Rehman (nation.com.pk)
• Zardari, Altaf discuss political situation (nation.com.pk)
• Zardari returns to Pakistan to face accusations of treason (independent.co.uk)

© 2011, Abbas Zaidi. This article may not be reproduced in any form without providing an active attribution link/ reference to The Pakistan Forum. All attribution links within the article must also be retained.

My whole generation faced this choice.