ام الاخبائث سوچ کو شکست دینا ہوگی

تحریر: امام بخش

۱۹۵۲
سے لے کر آج تک ھماری فوجی قیادت ہمیشہ سے سمجھتی آئی ہے کہ پاکستان میں ہر چیز اس کے تابع ہونی چاہیےاور ملک کے ہر معاملے میں صرف اس کی گرفت مضبوط ہو۔ یہ خود کو عقل کل اور اپنے ہر عمل کو قانون سے برتر سمجھتی ہے۔ اس کا اپنا ایک مخصو ص مائنڈ سیٹ )ذہنی کیفیت) ہے جس کی وجہ سے یہ اپنے علاوہ ملک کی ہر قانونی و عدالتی اتھارٹی اور عوام سمیت سب کو بلڈی سویلین گردانتی ہے۔

ھماری اعلی فوجی قیادت نے اپنی اس گہری سوچ کو عملی جامہ بھی پہنایا ہے۔ جمہوری حکومت کے ہوتے ہوئے کورکمانڈر بیٹھ کر کھلے عام سیاسی فیصلے کرتے ہیں اور اس پر عمل بھی کرواتے ہیں۔ آرمی قیادت کی نظر میں جمہوری اور آئینی نظام کی ذرا برابر وقعت نہیں۔ آرمی چیف عوام کے چنے ہوئے وزیراعظم کو سیلوٹ تک نہ کرنے کی حتی الوسع کوشش کرتے ہیں۔ ایک منتخب وزیراعظم تو حاضر سروس آرمی چیف پرویزمشرف کے اپنے بارے میں مخصوص تکیہ کلام حرامی کی گواہی بھی دے چکے ہیں۔

پاکستانی معیشت سے قطعہ نظر خاکی قیادت نے عوام کے سامنے بھارت کا ہوا کھڑا کر کے بجٹ کا بڑا حصہ ہتھیانے کا قدیم اور متاثرکن ”فن عظیم” اپنایا ہوا ہے۔ فوجی بجٹ شفاف طریقے سے پارلیمنٹ میں پیش کرنے کی اجازت ہرگز نہیں ہے اور اس بجٹ کا آزاد آڈٹ تو ”گناہ کبیرہ” سمجھا جاتا ہے۔

ہمارے عظیم فوجی جنرل بھائیوں نے پاکستان کی سرحدوں کے تحفظ کا حلف اٹھایا ہوتا ہے۔ مگر انھوں نے اپنے حلف کا پابند ہونے کی بجائے ہمیشہ پاکستان کی بنیادیں کھوکھلی کرنے کے ”عظیم کارنامے” سرانجام دئیے ہیں۔ انھوں نے اپنے فرض کے علاوہ ملک کی ہرچیز اور ہر حرکت کوتباہ کن نتائج کی پرواہ کیے بغیراپنے تابع عمل کیا ہے۔ مگر اس کے ساتھ ساتھ اپنا فرض ایسی خوبصورتی سے نبھایا ہے کہ ہر جنگ میں عبرتناک شکست کھائی ہے۔ انھوں نے دشمنوں کی بجائے پاکستان کی عوام پر دہشت طاری کرنے کی جہد مسلسل کے ساتھ ساتھ بڑے بڑے بلنڈرز بھی فرمائے ہیں جس سے وطن عزیز کودلخراش سانحات سے دوچار ہونا پڑا مگر پاکستان کے کسی انتظامی و قانونی ادارے کو یہ جرات آج تک نہیں رہی کہ ”بہادر جنرلز” کے کسی غلط اقدام کو بھی چیلنج کر سکے۔

پاکستان کی تاریخ خاکی وردی والوں کی سیاسی کوزہ گری اور خودسری سے بھری پڑی ہے۔ ہر ملٹری ڈکٹیٹر اصولی سیاست کا بزور طاقت قتل کرتا ہے اور اپنے نا جائز دور حکومت میں عوام میں مقبول سیاست دانوں کو پیچھے دھکیلتے ہوئے ایسے سیاست دانوں کی ںئی پنیری لگاتا ہے جن میں ابن الوقتی اور خود غرضی کا مادہ وافر مقدار میں موجود ہوتا ہے اور آگے بڑھ کر یہی سیاست دان مجموعی طور پر پاکستان کے کرتا دھرتا بن جاتے ہیں۔ نئے سیاست دانوں کے ساتھ ساتھ بعض پرانے سیاست دانوں نے بھی ملٹری ڈکٹیٹرز کے اشاروں پر ملکی سیاست میں اپنا منفی کردار بھرپور طریقے سے ادا کیا۔

پاکستان میں ایک ملٹری ڈکٹیٹر کی دس گیارہ سالوں کی حکومت کے بعد جب عوام کے صبر کا پیمانہ لبریز ہونے لگتا ہے تو ہمارے مہا کاریگر ”پاسبان” تھوڑی مدت کے لیے سیاسی حکومت بنا دیتے ہیں۔ مگر سیاسی حکومت بنانے سے پہلے ایجینسیوں کے سیکرٹ فنڈز اور ہیر پھیر سے انتخابی نتائج اپنی مرضی سے مرتب کرتے ہیں۔ اگر ان خفیہ اور ظاہری کوششوں کے باوجود بھی اگر کوئی سیاسی پارٹی ان کی مرضی کے خلاف حکومت بنانے میں کامیاب ہو جاتی ہے۔ تو حالات ایسے پیدا کر دئیے جاتے ہیں کہ جمہوری حکومت پوری طرح قدم نہ جما سکے۔

پاکستان میں ہر بار مارشل لاء امریکی مفاد میں لگا ہے۔ مارشل لاء لگتے ہی امریکہ اور دوسری طاقتیں اپنے منصوبے پورا کرنے میں سرگرم ہو جاتی ہیں۔ ان منصوبوں کی تکمیل کے لیے سرمایہ بھی پا نی کی طرح بہایا جاتا ہے۔ دوسرے لفظوں میں جیسے ہی ملٹری ڈکٹیٹر گھنگرو باندھ کر”مجرا” شروع کرتا ہے تو ڈالرز کی ویلوں کی بارش ہونے لگتی ہے۔ اس مجرے سے پا کستان کے نقصان سے قطعہ نظر اشتہاری گروپ زوردار طریقے سے اپنا خود غرضانہ پرچار شروع کر دیتا ہے کہ اب تو پاکستان کی معیشت کو پر لگ گئے ہیں۔ مگر جیسے ہی ڈکٹیٹر کی رخصتی پر” ٹھمکا” اختتام کو پہنچتا ہے تو بد قماش طاقتیں اپنی ویلیں بھی بند کر دیتی ہیں۔ اسکے بعد جمہوری حکومت کے آنے کے بعد ”غیرت بریگیڈ” جیسے ”محب وطن” پا کستان کی معیشت کے ڈوبنے کا ڈھنڈورا پیٹنا شروع کر دیتے ہیں۔

جمہوری حکومت کے آتے ہی سیکرٹ ایجینسیوں کے کارندے اپنی باریک کاروائیوں سے افواہوں کا بازار گرم کر دیتے ہیں۔ کرپشن کا دھواں دھار واویلا مچایا جاتا ہے۔ نعوذبااللہ پاکستان کے بالکل تباہ اور ختم ہونے کے مرثیے بڑے منظم اور متاثرکن المیہ انداز میں پیش کیے جاتے ہیں۔ آئے دن منتخب حکومت کے جانے کی تاریخیں تواتر سے دی جاتی ہیں۔ مقصد صرف ایک ہوتا ہے کہ جتنا بھی جلدی ہو سکے جمہوری حکومت کو زیادہ سے زیادہ بدنام کرکے چلتا کیا جائے اور پھر اپنی تشریف آوری کا جواز پیدا کر دیا جا ئے۔

پاکستان میں”ام الاخبائث” سوچ کوپروان چڑھانے میں ریاست کے اہم ستون بھی اپنی روائتی ظالمانہ بے حسی اور کمال ”بہادری” کے ساتھ اپنا کردارخوب نبھاتے چلے آرہے ہیں۔ مثلاھماری عدالت عظمی کا فوجی قیادت سے چولی دامن کا ساتھ رہا ہے۔ اس نے ہر دور میں ھمارے ”پاسبانوں” کا ماورائے قانون، استعداد اور فرمائش سے سے بڑھ کر اپنی سچی محبت نبھائی ہے۔ ہمارے معزز منصفوں نے ہر ملٹری ڈکٹیٹر کے دور میں ”پی۔سی۔او” کے تحت حلف اٹھا کر اپنا ”فرض منصبی” خوب ادا کیا ہے۔ معزز عدالت عظمی”نظریہ ضرورت” کے تحت فیصلے صادر فرماتی رہی ہے۔ اور تو اور پاکستان کےمجرم اعظم )ملٹری ڈکٹیٹر) کو آئین میں جہاں سے اس کا دل چاہے تبدیل کرنے کی بھی پوری آزادی عطا کر دیتی ہے۔

ھماری عدلیہ عالیہ انصاف کے دو واضع اصولوں پر سختی اور مستقل مزاجی سے کاربند رہی ہے۔ ایک فوجی اور دوسرا سول۔ پہلے تو کسی فوجی جنرل کے خلاف مقدمہ لیا ہی نہیں جاتا اورعدالتی رجسٹرار تک پوری دیدہ دلیری اور تحکمانہ انداز سے درخواستوں کو درخواست گار کے سامنے زمین پر پٹخ دیتا ہے۔ اگر پھر بھی روکنے کی کوششوں کے باوجود مجبوری سے ایسا مقدمہ عدالت میں لے بھی لیا جائے تو لمبی لمبی مدت تک ملتوی کرنے کی مشق شروع ہو جاتی ہے۔ اور پھر سالوں بعد بھی عدلیہ کی اس مقدمے سے جان نا چھوٹے تو ایسا غیر موثر فیصلہ سنایا جاتا ہے۔ جس پر عمل داری خواب سا بن جاتی ہے۔ اس کے برعکس اگر عام پاکستانی یا منتخب نما ئدے پر جھوٹا مقدمہ بھی عدلیہ میں آ جا ئے۔ تو عدالت عظمی کی مستعدی دیکھنے لائق ہوتی ہے اور توہین عدالت، توہین عدالت کی یلغار کے ساتھ آئین کی من پسند تشریح کر کے مقدمے کا فیصلہ ”عین انصاف” کے مطابق سنایا جاتا ہے۔

حالیہ تاریخ میں جنرل اسلم بیگ اور جنرل اسد درانی کی اصغر خان کے کیس میں اپنے حلفیہ بیانوں میں سپریم کورٹ کو کھلم کھلا دھمکیاں فوجی قیادت کی سوچ کا بہترین مظاہرہ ہے۔ آرمی چیف کا آگے بڑھ کر اپنے پیٹی بند بھا ئیوں کے ساتھ ساتھ ایجینسیوں کے دفاع کے لیے حالیہ زوردار بیان دینا اور چیف جسٹس آف پاکستان کا عدالت عظمی میں ”اپنے لوگوں” کے لاحقے کا استمال پوری قوم کی آنکھیں کھولنے کے لیے کافی ہے۔

کوئی تو ہمارے منصفِ اعظم کو دوسری جنگ عظیم میں عدالتوں کے بارے میں ونسٹن چرچل کا قول سنائے۔ ھماری مسلح افواج کے سپہ سالارِ اعظم سے مودبانہ عرض کرے کہ ایک ملک میں فوجی اداروں کے علاوہ دوسرے اداروں کی اہمیت بھی بتائے اور یہ عرض بھی کرنا نہ بھولے کہ کسی ادارے کا مورال صرف تنقید سے گرتا ہے اور نا ہی بلند ہوتا ہے بلکہ ادارے کی اچھی یا بری ساکھ اس کی اپنی کارکردگی پر منحصر ہوتی ہے۔ کیا ہمارے عدالتی اور فوجی سربراہان کو یہ بھی بتانے کی ضرورت ہے کہ اولیورکرامویل جیسے ہیرو کے ساتھ عدالت نے کیا تاریخی سلوک کیا۔ ایسے عدالتی فیصلے کیوں ضروری ہوتے ہیں اور مستقبل کے لیے ملک میں کیا رجحانات مرتب کرتے ہیں۔

ہمارے نام نہاد آزاد میڈیا نے بھی اپنی اوقات سے بڑھ کر فوجی قیادت کا ہر نازک موقعہ پر بھرپور ساتھ دیا ہے۔ ہمارے تلاطم پسند اور شورش مزاج نامی گرامی ٹی وی اینکرز پاکستان کے مجرموں کا بائیکاٹ کرنے کی بجائے ہر شام ملٹری ڈکٹیٹرز کا ساتھ نبھانے والے سیاست دانوں، جنرلز اور بیورو کریٹز کے ساتھ اپنا ”ٹھیہ” لگا کر بیٹھتے ہیں۔ جو اپنے ابن الوقتی اور خود غرضی کے راستے کو صراط مستقیم گردانتے ہیں۔ کسی شرم وحیا کے بغیر ڈنکے کی چوٹ پر اپنے بدبو دار کرتوتوں کو شاندار کارناموں کی شکل دے کر پیش کرتے ہیں۔ اور نئی نسل کو اپنے ”سبق” پڑھانے کی کوشش کرتے ہیں کہ ”کامیابی” کا راستہ کون سا ہے۔ ان قوم کے مجرموں کو انٹرویوز وغیرہ کے لیے بلانے میں تو کوئی حرج نہیں مگر تجزیہ نگار یا ماہرین کے طور پر مستقل طور پر ٹی وی پروگراموں میں بلانا پاکستانی قوم کی کون سی خدمت ہے؟

تقریریں سن لیں، تحریریں پڑھ لیں تو ہمارے نامی گرامی صحافیوں کی اپنی تعریف اور بہادری کی داستانیں ختم نہیں ہوتی۔ ایسے لگتا ہے کہ صرف یہی صاحبان صحافتی تہذیب کے مسلمہ قرینے اور اجلی روایات کے امین ہیں۔ مگر جیسے ہی مارشل لا لگتا ہے تویہ لفافہ صحافی پا کستان کے ”مجرم اعظم” کی بارگاہ ناز میں سر خمیدہ ہو کر کورنش بجا لاتے نظر آتے ہیں۔ اپنی عیار عقل سے اپنی تحریروں کے سو بھیس بدل لیتے ہیں۔ یہ اپنی دلیل و تاویل اور فلسفہ تراشی کا ہنر خوب جانتے ہیں۔ قصیدہ گوئی کے فن کا عظیم مظاہرہ فرماتے ہیں۔ ھماری حالیہ تاریخ میں ابھی بھی بڑے معزز صحافت کے علمبردار پائے جاتے ہیں جو ”مرد مومن” کو گندے لطیفے سنا کر اور اس کا ایمان تازہ کر کے خوب داد پاتےتھے۔ مجھے یقین ہے کہ انھوں نے اپنے شاہکار دیوان سنبھال کر رکھے ہوں گے کہ کیا پتہ کب بطل جلیل سامع تشریف لے آئے اور گلشن کا کاروبار پھر سے چل نکلے۔

بار بار کے مارشل لاوں نے پاک وطن میں لاتعداد لعنتوں کےعلاوہ ہمارے معاشرے پر بہت زیادہ منفی رجحانات مرتب کیے ہیں پورے ملکی نظام کو تباہ و برباد کیا ہے۔ کیونکہ مارشل لاء ڈکٹیٹر آئین کو اپنے قدموں کے نیچے روند کر پورے پاکستان پر اپنی بندوق کی نوک پر اپنا جبر مسلط کر کے پوری قوم کو باور کرانے کی کوشش کرتا ہے کہ طاقت آئین کی بجائے صرف جسمانی طاقت کے وجود میں ہے۔ ہمارے وطن عزیز میں یہ اک عجب تماشہ ہے کہ ایک سائیکل چور تو عدالتی فیصلے کے بعد جیل میں گل سڑ رہا ہوتا ہے مگر پاکستان کا آئین توڑنے والا بلکہ پورے پاکستان کو چوری کرنے والا سب سے بڑا مجرم۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ ہاں، ہاں پاکستان کا سب سے بڑا مجرم ملٹری ڈکٹیٹر پاکستان کا سربراہ بن کر پورے ملک کے سیاہ و سفید کا مالک بن بیٹھتا ہے۔ پاکستان میں اب صورت حال یہ ہے کہ میرٹ، امن اور عدل و انصاف کب کے مرحوم ہو چکے۔ کوئی پاکستانی جائز طریقے سے اپنا حق حاصل نہیں کر سکتا۔ ہر طرف نفس اور ہوس کی حکمرانی ہے جس کی وجہ سے خود غرضی پورے معاشرے میں سرائت کر گئی ہے۔

ابراہام لنکن نے کہا تھا کہ آپ تمام لوگوں کو کچھ وقت کے لیے بیوقوف بنا سکتے ہیں اور کچھ لوگوں کو ہمیشہ کے لیے بیوقوف بنا سکتے ہیں، لیکن آپ سب لوگوں کو ہروقت بیوقوف نہیں بنا سکتے ہیں

دیکھنا یہ ہے کہ پاکستان میں اب ابراہام لنکن کی بات کب سچ ثابت ہوتی ہے؟ قوم کو ”ام الاخبائث” سوچ رکھنے والی منفی طاقتوں کو پوری طرح پہچاننے کی ضرورت ہے۔ کیونکہ یہی سوچ پاکستان میں تمام برائیوں کی جڑ ہے اور اسی کو شکست دینے میں ہی پاکستان کی بقا اور ترقی کا راز ہے۔ پاکستانی قوم کو اس چیز کا بھی ادراک کرنا ہو گا کہ جمہوریت کے تسلسل سے منفی طاقتیں کمزور ہوں گی اور اگر پاکستان میں تین چار جمہوری حکومتیں اپنی مدت پوری کر جاتی ہیں تو ”ام الاخبائث” سوچ رکھنے والی قوتیں اور ان کے حواری ارتقائی طریقے سے بے نقاب ہوتے ہوتے اپنی غلیظ کاریگری سے عوام کو ماضی کی طرح بیوقوف بنانے کے عمل سے ہمیشہ کے لیے معذورونامراد ہو جائیں گے۔ انشااللہ

Tinpot warrior

“I made mistakes and I am prepared to admit them but so must others. Others also owe it: they owe it to their own armed forces, to the people of Pakistan and to the Muslim world.” In one of her most candid interviews, Benazir Bhutto bluntly talks about her two terms in office, the difficulties that she faced, the things that she implemented and her vision for the future of Pakistan.

As Pakistanis, we are a little bit crazy when it comes to politics. We either love to make our politicians holy cows so much so that we cannot even accept constructive criticism regarding their policies or we just hate them to the extent that we will believe any allegations against them without even needing or wanting a proof. Benazir Bhutto fits perfectly into both camps. There are those who are ever ready to admire her (and very rightly so) for her courage and struggle for democracy in Pakistan by overlooking some of the faulty laws or policies enacted by her party; At the same time, there is certainly no shortage of those who are only going to believe whatever her opposition has to say and will never pay attention to her sacrifices for this country.

Despite being in power twice, she was a great believer in the power of the people and saw herself just as their representative, not a ruler. Even though military in Pakistan has always been successful in getting public support by picking up causes that has hurt this country in the end more than anything else, Bhutto always wanted to play the game of politics through proper channel in an unfair system which was ever ready to demolish democracy even before it had any chance to blossom. She believed that it was the people of Pakistan that should determine the future of this country as it is their country. “The real solution lies not with any individual. I can only give a clarion call. Then it depends on the masses whether they rally around that call to say that they want a constitution based on the supremacy of the will of the people and that the prime minister and parliament must determine national security and not the military.” However, I must say, we as people have disappointed her.

And it is not just a thing of the past, just look at the power balance in Pakistan today. People are always very sensitive to listen to any criticism of our military leadership and intelligence agencies. What they fail to realize is that pointing the mistakes of policies that are destroying our country is not less patriotic or treasonous; In fact it is more patriotic because you always criticize those who you love the most. If you don’t care about something, you are never going to interfere in their business and let them go down the path of destruction. But in case of Pakistan, the role of such institutions “has led to the destabilisation of political governments, the collapse of the economy and has undermined our standing in the international community.” Therefore, it is our duty as citizens of this state to question and speak against those whose decisions are causing problems for this country. The tragedy however, is that majority of our nation is unaware of the past and present policies of army and intelligence that has led Pakistan into one chaos after another. Benazir Bhutto clearly express her frustration when she says that people expect politicians to solve our problems but “how can a political party fight an organised military, several intelligence outfits, the president and the judiciary? It is very important to create this awareness. It is very important for the press to come on board to expose these manipulations.”

Now people always malign PPP government for being a puppet of US. You can certainly have your opinions on that but it’s not like the military has been making Pakistan independent of US slavery. In fact, some of the worse puppets that are the cause of our dire state today were army generals who have never cared about the prosperity of ordinary people and have this country be used by outside powers to fight wars with which we had nothing to do with. Despite the role of army in destroying our democracy and persecuting democratically minded leaders, Bhutto’s vision of future Pakistan included reconciliation between different authorities, not confrontation because at the end what matters is Pakistan, which is bigger and better than any one individual or institution. In her words, “It is for us, as a nation, to decide what we want together. The army can reveal its true intentions by eliminating democracy and Quaid-e-Azam’s Pakistan through rule by puppets — and there are a lot of puppets in the market. Or else, the military has to learn to acquiesce to the people’s will. We are all part of the problem and we are all part of the solution. I think there is a need for a frank and open talk between all the different players because, in our own ways, we all love Pakistan.”

Even though she was attacked by religious right for her progressive and modern ideals, she was not only well aware of her roots but also proud of them. For her, it was her identity as a Muslim woman that gave her the courage to do the things that she envisioned and face the atrocities that lied in her path. “I see life as a journey where every single soul is tested by Allah. What sustains me is my faith. I am not a fanatic though my enemies portray me as a fundamentalist with a dupatta on the head and a tasbih in hand. I am devout. I am like many modern Pakistanis who do believe in equal opportunities, freedom and free markets but who also need spiritual sustenance in a world that is increasingly materialistic.”

While this particular interview is some 10 years old, she very accurately predicted the future of Pakistan. Today we are standing at the same cross-roads where we have always found ourselves in. “Either the democratic forces win or the establishment wins. If the establishment wins, the past will be repeated and that is what has happened for 50 years. If the democratic forces win, maybe the 21st century will be different for Pakistan. It is a fight and we are unable to say who will be the winner. But then, democracy is also about evolution. And democracy is also about fighting for what you believe is right and not giving up.”

Just as candidly as she started the interview by accepting her mistakes, with the same honesty she tells that whatever power she has to bring any change, it’s the same as people of Pakistan want to give to her. “I am not a messiah. I can only work within the limitations placed upon me by the people (in terms of my ability to effect constitutional change) and the institutional realities of Pakistan.”

You don’t have to be a PPP or Benazir Bhutto’s supporter to realize that when she talks about the power imbalance in our country, she does have a point. Nations who don’t learn from their past are bound to repeat it and go down the path of doom. Civilizations after civilizations have been destroyed and not a single sign of them has been left just because they forgot to adapt to demands of modern world and were too busy glorifying the past or what could have been. It is high time that we do take a stand for something that we believe in because if we don’t, may be nothing would be left to take a stand for.

پاکستان کا پودا گملے میں لگا نے کے بعد ہم بھول گۓ کہ اسکو ہم نے کشادہ زمین کے سینے میں منتقل کرنا ہے۔ اب اس پودے کینمی اور سانس رکنےلگی ہے۔ سورج کی روشنی بھی اب اسکے لۓ بیکار ہوتے جارہےہیں۔

پاکستان جو آدھی صدی سےگزرکر آدھی صدی کی کہانی بیان کرنے والا ہے، اس کے پاس کہنے کوکیا ہے؟ مرکز کے اختیارات اور صوبائ خود اختیاری سوال، پارلیمانی یا صدارتی نظام کی بحث، ریاست اور مذہب کے تعلق کی نوعیت، بار بار آیئین کی پامالی، اقساط میں خودکشی کرتی ہوئ جمہوریت، لمبی طویل فوجی بوٹوں کی چاپ، پاکستان کے ٹوٹ کر آدھا ہو جا نے کا نوحہ، نمائندہ رہنماؤں کی جلاوطنی، قائد عوام کا قتل، سڑکوں پر بہتا شہید جمہوریت کا خون، ایجنسیوں، بیوروکریسی اور اپوزیشن کی سازشیں، سیاسی اور مذہبی جماعتوں کے تضادات، عوام کا بے سمت ہجوم ۔ مگ افسوس ہم نے آج بھی کچھ نہیں سیکھا۔

ہمارا المیہ یہ ہے کہ ہمارے غیر نمائندہ ریاستی اداروں نے آ ج تک بین الاقوامی اصولوںاور بنیادی اقدارکی نفی کی ہے اور انسانی ذندگی کی عضمت کوپامال کیا ہے۔ اجتمای مفاد کی بجاۓ انفرادی مفاد کو سامنے رکھا ہے۔ جس سے ہمارے نظام کامجموی ڈھانچہ ریت کے ٹیلوں کی طرح بکھرتے بکھرتے صحرا بن چکا ہے، جہاں ہر طرف سراب نظر آتے ہیں۔

پاکستان کی تاریخ بحرانوں اور جرنیلوں کی تاریخ رہی ہے، جس میں ججوں اور جرنلسٹوں کا بطور آلہ کار ایک کلیدی کردار رہا ہے۔ ہر موڑ پر ایک نیا چیف مارشل لا ایڈمنسٹریٹر نۓ سائن بورڈ کے ساتھ کھڑا دکھائ دیتا ہے۔ جس میں کسی پر اسلامی جمہوریت، کسی پر بنیادی جمہوریت اور کسی پر حقیقی جمہوریت لکھاہواتھا۔

جمہوریت کے راستے سے ہٹانے والے ان سائن بورڈز کی منزل تباہی و بربادی کی گہری کھائ تھی ۔ ان غیر نمائندہ حکمرانوں نے جمہوریت کی نشو ونما روکنے کے لۓ سیاسی قیادت کو ہمیشہ گملوں میں رکھنے کی سازش کی ہے۔ اگر کسی سیاستدان نے اپنی جڑیں کشادہ زمیں میں منتقل کرنے کی کوشش کی ہے تو اسے نشان عبرت بنا دیا گیا ہے۔ قید وبند کی صعوبتیں، زہنی جسمانی اذیتیں اور شہادت اس کی قسمت میں لکھ دی گئ ہیں ہم آج بھی جمہویت کی تلاش میں ہیں۔ اور آج بھی خطرہ ہے کہ ہمیں منزل سے بھٹکا کراندھیرے راستے پر ڈالنے کی سازش ہورہی ہے۔ این ار او اور میمو اس سلسے کی کڑیاں ہیں۔

وزیرِاعظم یوسف رضا گیلانی نے قومی اسمبلی میں اپنے خطاب میں کہا کہ انیس سو ننانوے میں نواز شریف کی منتخب حکومت کا تختہ الٹنے کا ذکر کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ اس وقت بینظیر بھٹو نے ان سے کہا تھا کہ ’یہ سیج ہمارے لیے نہیں سجایا گیا اور یہاں نہ ہم آئیں گے اور نہ وہ (نواز شریف)‘۔

وزیرِ اعظم نے حزبِ اختلاف کو خبردار کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ ’ اگر اب بھی کوئی سیج سجایا گیا تو وہ نہ آپ کے لیے ہوگا نہ ہمارے لیے‘۔

جو معاشرے تبدیل ہونے کی صلاحیت اور قوت کھو دیتے ہیں وہ گناہگار ہوجاتے ہیں اور انسانی معاشرے کا سب سے بڑا گناہ ‘جمود’ ہے۔ فرخ خان پتافی اپنے ‘روزنامہ ایکسپریس’ میں شائع ہونے والے آرٹیکل ‘ہم نے کیا سیکھا؟’ میں یہ سوال کرنے کے ساتھ ساتھ یہ تجزیہ بھی دے رہے ہیں کہ ہماری فوج، عدالت، میڈیا اور سیاسی جماعتیں ماضی سے سیکھنے میں ناکام رہی ہیں۔

اردو اور پنجابی کے معروف منفرد تیکھے لہجے اور بلند آہنگ شاعر اور ادیب نذیر قیصر روزنامہ مشرق کیلئے روزانہ قطعہ لِکھ رہے ہیں۔
ہم آج کا قطعہ قارئین کی خِدمت میں کراس پوسٹ کر رہے ہیں

کوئ آۓ نہ چور رستے سے

اب نہ آٔئین توڑنے دیں گے

سلسلہ طالع آزماؤں سے

اب کسی کا نہ جو ڑنے دیں گے

شاعر: نذیر قیصر

Source: Daily Mashriq(Page 3) January 7, 2012

The following essay examines nine common narratives, over a four part series. Essentially the thesis explores Pakistan’s identity for the future and the need for taking responsibility for the past. Recurring themes are the: civilian government vs. the military identity, and the default to blaming the U.S. for Pakistan issues. There are certainly more flawed narratives these I have offered, but if even these few are ignored it tends to add to the current conspiracy of silence. Such politically correct notions tend to keep Pakistan in an identity crisis, and passively ignoring core truths that contribute to positive change, healing and renewal. And, a brief review of Pakistan’s tumultuous history will sufficiently inform why I use “healing” as an apt term. Most articles in the South Asian press and blogs are inclined towards Pakistan-as-victim. This is often balanced with the United States or India as persecutors. The post-article comments are often inundated with what the U.S. or India has done to make Pakistan the economically fragile and politically dangerous place that it is today. Even in the Left wing U.S. media, or, anti-West biased journalists appearing on Al Jazeera (tacitly pro-Islamist), use jihadist language, “American imperialism” is said to drive everything to ruin in the Middle East and South Asia, with no accountability assigned to the nations themselves. Let’s assume for sake of argument that the U.S. is an imperial war machine, although I would dispute that, are the Pakistanis’ still not responsible for their own self-determination? Are the Pakistanis not to blame for any result? Are Pakistanis really victims?

The relentless complaints about the U.S. from Pakistan press conveniently stifle meaningful debate, and tend to deflect culpability. False narratives are most effective when fact is mixed with fiction. While such rhetoric obfuscates Pakistan issues, it is useful to the pseudo-secular, fake civil society that attempt to manipulate and sabotage progressive thought for political advantage. The colloquy containing half-truths may sound like the following flawed assertions we so often hear:

On the question of Pakistan’s true identity:

1. “Pakistan is not a military or authoritarian state, it is an Islamic democratic-republic, and the Army has only taken over government when the elected government didn’t do its job.”

Many people reach a point where they realize that the shape their life has taken does not square with the ambitions they originally had for it. Nations sometimes have to come to terms with this identity crisis as well. In foreign policy and many domestic decisions, isn’t Pakistan more accurately described as being run by the military rather than its elected democratic government? Certainly presidents/prime ministers are aware of the ever present threat of a military takeover if policy does not go its way given the history of Pakistan. Short of a take over, there are many ways an embedded culture of military and security operatives can shape civilian realities. The military and ISI currently share a kinship with Islamist radicals, evident in the unchecked violence from Sindh to FATA. To stand up against Blasphemy Laws puts one in eminent danger; to petition the government or deride the military from Baluchistan, is to risk turning up missing as Rangers roam the area. To question the military from the office of the president risks a coup and martial law. What is the true identity of such a nation?

What is the identity of Pakistan? A democracy? A modern Muslim state, a fundamental  Islamist nation? Or, is it in fact, military authoritarian? Listening to political parties’ divergent views on the role of government in politics is instructive: PML-Q Quaid-e-Azam group are aligned with a past military dictator General Musharraf, recently accused again of corruption. Musharraf originally formed a government after rigged elections; and then there are the Islamist apologists:  the PML-N is now supported by religious extremists. The party has been accused of widespread corruption and extrajudicial killings carried out presumably with Pak Army and ISI approval. Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League, Nawaz has been a supporter of General Hameed Gul; MQM, is a party associated with bloody political killings in Karachi in the mid-1990s and again today; there are the other smaller parties, ANP Awami National Party of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province, did support the US in anti-Taliban measures. The antagonism between political parties in Pakistan range from unsubstantiated accusations to violence to assassination: Isn’t the PPP the only party that does not attempt to use Islamist rhetoric to get the Muslim vote?

Note that each party accuses the other of corruption- and there is no party leader who has NOT been accused of corruption, including the sitting president and his martyred wife. To face these truths does not mean we fall apart, but it does grant clarity in as to where we have been, and where we need to go to repair our reputation.

Turning our attention to the current elected president and government, the tendency of social chatter all too frequently is to attempt to discredit the PPP.  There is a progressive liberal contingency that favors democratic and liberal agenda and apparently an elite liberal-set who clearly favors the military in Pakistan. The urban- elite will chastise the PPP for dropping the Blasphemy Law repeal after Taseer (PPP) was killed, forgetting that even while Sherry Rehman (PPP) was threatened and had to go into hiding she still supported repealing it; The repeal will obviously be a slow process, but the PPP put it on the table.

It is useful to remember when criticizing, that when you are actually serving in office, you are at risk. Critics often fail to remember that any Pakistan political party must show caution with regards to the Army and ISI. Those are the current realities on the ground in Pakistan today. The PPP is the only electable democratic political party that is for democratic liberties, and pluralism, and there are no other alternatives that do not show sympathy for Islamic laws currently embedded in the Constitution. There appears to be no other parties on the horizon that could or would address the Islamist legacy provisions in the Constitution. The only hope for the future of democracy in Pakistan may be the PPP. Or, could it be the MQM with its incontrollable gangs of bloody violence in the streets of Karachi? Or, the PLM-N chief Nawaz Sharif who spouts political rhetoric and platitudes? Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif future election strategy, stunningly includes aligning with Deobandi terrorist organization Sipah-e-Sahaba;  Doesn’t the recent alliances of Jamaat-i-Islami’s chief Syed Munawwar Hasan with PML-N chief Mian Nawaz Sharif and MQM leader Altaf Hussain startle civil society or is our identity so confused we need to align with radicals? Any party that obstructs repealing the blasphemy law, or the Ahmadis ordinances, are Islamist stakeholders stuck in the dark days of General Zia ul Haq.

The ANP is on terrorist hit lists, as are some on the path of sacred path of Imam Hussain; it is Pakhtun brother against brother in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. And then there is Imran Khan who has been referred to as Pakistan’s version of Sarah Palin; attractive, immensely charming and likeable, but naïve and shallow, unprepared for running a government. The reality is that Sarah Palin actually ran a successful state as governor. Even those credentials are not part of the cult of personality driving Imran Khan’s pretense to moderation. Who does not like Imran Khan? But, likeability is no substitute for a principled politician with an intrepid belief in a democratic Pakistan. A democratic identity may not square with Islamist rhetoric or military allegiance that appears to be an essential element in politics, with the exception of PPP.

Discrediting the PPP through its history is becoming a stale game: corruption allegations of deceased Z. Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto, past allegations of Zardari Swiss bank accounts. It is noteworthy that all these attacks were generated by political opposition, or the military, never substantiated, and the record of “extrajudicial killings” under Bibi’s terms in office point more to ISI-operations that persist through every official that has held office in Pakistan. The charge of her “brutal handling” of the Karachi riots, regardless of who gave the order actually brought the violence under control. Again, the army was involved in these measures as they are today. President Zardari’s prior imprisonment appears in hindsight due to political rivals, as does the relentless cynicism attributed to the label “10%” meant to taint any good that Zardari has done. Given the choice of the field, why would democratic-minded pluralistic and liberty-conscious civil society continually demonize the PPP, its only real chance at democracy? Disparaging the only pro-democratic party up for election that separates religion and politics appears to be another example of forgetting the Democratic identity and goals of the majority of Pakistan civil society.

Politics can easily devolve into dysfunction, as it seems to have recently in the U.S. name-calling over economic debates. The establishment press often assaults the PPP as if there were an alternative. The choice is radical Islamic party sympathizers and Sharia law, military-driven politics, or democracy.

During Jinnah’s time, the democratic-minded, secular-elite believed in a westernized civil society as did the Shiite-minority. The Sunni-majority, Sufi-influenced Barelvi sect, strongly disagreed and still do.  Why wouldn’t the identity of Pakistan be confused in some measure? The Urdu poet-philosopher Mohammad Iqbal, called for the amalgamation to Punjab, the Northwest Frontier Province, Sind, and Baluchistan into a ‘single state” as the “final destiny” of “Muslims.”[1] Zulfi Bhutto confirmed Jinnah’s message in 1976, “ ‘My government happens to be attuned to modern humanism…Pakistan brings to everyone of us irrespective of caste, colour or religious creed,’ echoing Jinnah’s first speech to the Constituent Assembly in Karachi  on 11 August 1947.”[2] Jinnah’s vision was of a secular state for Muslims, with freedom of religion, perhaps not unlike Turkey is today.

Jinnah and Iqbal did not live long enough to assure that their combined and rational balance of secular and moderate-Islamic ideals would become the identity of the new Pakistan. Was this to be an Islamist state of Sharia Law, based on its million strong Sunni population or a military authoritarian government based on an existential threat from India? The Constitution as it is now, containing Islamist law, combines feudalism with modern justice is a conflicted document.

The initial precedent of Pakistan turning from civilian-controlled police force to the military in order to control rebellious groups began as early as the 1950s. As early as 1956 military intervention and Islamist-will was imposed on the Dominion of Pakistan as Jamaat-I Islami activists rioted over demands that Ahmadi sect be declared non-Muslims. The president, Major General Iskander Mirza declared Martial Law and announced plans to rewrite what he decided was an overly democratic Constitution.

This resulted in the first of many military interventions over civil government and a perfectly capable civilian police force that would become marginalized, under-funded and insufficiently trained. General Muhammad Ayub Khan subsequently conducted a bloodless coup sending Mirza into exile. General Khan was equally anti-democratic, anti-India and pro-military (60% of the budget even then went to military). Three things were established in Khan’s day- the ISI tasked to monitor political rivals; civilian police were marginalized by regular army, or rangers, blurring the lines of what is criminal behavior, versus what is national interest; “for the good of the people” justified the military coup, martial law, or the threat of both became a valid use of military power.

A Civil government that functions under the intimidation of an unelected authoritarian power, the Umma, or threat of a military dictatorship, is not conducive to a “democratic” state representative of its people.

We should honestly respect the Pakistan military as a formidable force whose job it is to protect Pakistan’s national security. The problem occurs when a military and its security apparatus (ISI) is not accountable to civil government, the elected officials that meet with heads of state, and attempt to guide a nation’s international and national policy. This is sabotaged by military mentality, instead of diplomacy. Such a mind-set, results in a society so habituated to its status quo that it becomes the accepted norm to see military in Karachi suppressing violent political gangs, instead of civilian police, who should have been sufficiently funded and trained to contain lawlessness and manage riot control.

intervention and Islamist-will was imposed on the Dominion of Pakistan as Jamaat-I Islami activists rioted over demands that Ahmadi sect be declared non-Muslims. The president, Major General Iskander Mirza declared Martial Law and announced plans to rewrite what he decided was an overly democratic Constitution.

This resulted in the first of many military interventions over civil government and a perfectly capable civilian police force that would become marginalized, under-funded and insufficiently trained. General Muhammad Ayub Khan subsequently conducted a bloodless coup sending Mirza into exile. General Khan was equally anti-democratic, anti-India and pro-military (60% of the budget even then went to military). Three things were established in Khan’s day- the ISI tasked to monitor political rivals; civilian police were marginalized by regular army, or rangers, blurring the lines of what is criminal behavior, versus what is national interest; “for the good of the people” justified the military coup, martial law, or the threat of both became a valid use of military power.

A Civil government that functions under the intimidation of an unelected authoritarian power, the Umma, or threat of a military dictatorship, is not conducive to a “democratic” state representative of its people.

We should honestly respect the Pakistan military as a formidable force whose job it is to protect Pakistan’s national security. The problem occurs when a military and its security apparatus (ISI) is not accountable to civil government, the elected officials that meet with heads of state, and attempt to guide a nation’s international and national policy. This is sabotaged by military mentality, instead of diplomacy. Such a mind-set, results in a society so habituated to its status quo that it becomes the accepted norm to see military in Karachi suppressing violent political gangs, instead of civilian police, who should have been sufficiently funded and trained to contain lawlessness and manage riot control.

Mr. Zafarullah Khan, Esecutive Director Centre for Civic Education Pakistan.

The Civic Education Network Pakistan organized a learning event; Constitutional Literacy Campaign, “Scope of Constitutional Provisions and Space for Provincial Autonomy” in Lahore on July 31, 2011.

The 18th Amendment and the 7th National Finance Commission(NFC) Award have signficantly changed the the resource distribution criterion, ownership over natural resources and modalities of fiscal management such as provinces’ power to raise domestic and international loans. By doing away with the Concurrent Legislative List it is expected that the cost of governance at various level will change. It is in this context that this learning event was organized to acquaint with and appraise the changes that have occurred and also to look for a way forward.

Mr. Zafarullah Khan, Executive Director Centre for Civic Education Pakistan welcomed all the participants and introduced the basic concept behind learning event. Senior journalist Mr. Hussain Naqi and Dr Jaffar Ahmed, director of Karachi University’s Pakistan Study Centre, also spoke on the occasion.

The main feature of the program was a presentation by Mr. Zafarullah Khan on ‘Scope of constitutional provisions and space for provincial autonomy’. The presentation was wonderful, well-researched and informative overview that I want to share with readers.

The following is the full text of the presentation.

Scope of constitutional provisions and space for provincial autonomy

Zafarullah Khan

We the People of Pakistan

Islamic Republic of Pakistan

[Only the Islamic provisions are taught. No focus on the republic. Result: Public and the republic are not on the same page]

Citizens(180 million plus) are the content of ‘Pakistani Democracy’ But the system is Elite ENGINEERED for the Elite

Democracy debate in Pakistan defies traditional “preconditions and outcome notions” and we the people refuse to de-learn our incremental lessons in Federal Parliamentary Democracy.

The Constitution: An all encompassing umbrella

Social contract between the Citizens and the State.

A set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state is governed.

Citizens get rights, the law legitimacy and the State institutions

Sanctity(can’t changeeven a full stop or a coma) and flexibility(amendments through prescribed mechanism). Our constitution has been amended 16 times since 1973.

Pakistani Experience

Failure to cobble-up a viable constitution(1947-1956)

High morality rate of constitution(1956, 1962, 1973 = In abeyance for 13-years out of its 38-years life. Hybird military-civilian regimes for 11-years)

Cynicism that the Constitution is irrelevent for ordinary citizens.

[Military regimes get PCO Judges, Puppet Politicians, but fundamental Rights are usurped, so citizens become slaves]

Federal-Provincial experiences

Politics: Federal GRIP(Governor, revenues, institution/ideology, policy)

Development: Federally planned” and “provincially executed” [Doner dependent, policy errors, non utilized development budgets, etc]

Failed Local Government Initiatives(basic democracy, National Reconstruction Bureau’s system. Ladder of legitimacy for usurper in uniform)

Civil Service: Federal bureaucrats (CSS) down to Tehsil.

Powers: paramountcy of Federal over Provincial due to Concurrent List and blurred boundaries of Residual power(Article 142). Central encroachments, especially on natural resources.

Post-18th Amendment situation

Out of the 47 subjects of the concurrent list one item boiler(no.29)has been shifted to the Federal Legislative list-I. And two items i.e Electricity and Legal, medical and other professions to the Federal Legislative list -II(Participatory management both by the federation and the federating units through Council of Common Interests.

Four Subjects have been shifted from part one of the Federal Legislative list to part two(Shared responsibility). These subjects include:

1. Major ports, that is to say, the declaration and delimitation of such ports, and the constitution and powers of port authorities therein.

2. Census.

3. Extension of the powers and the jurisdiction of members of police force belonging to any provinces to any area in other province to exercise powers and jurisdiction in another provinces without the consent of the members of a police force belonging to any province to railway areas outside the province.

4. National planning and national coordination including planning and coordination of scientific and technological research.

Post-18th Amendment situation

Five entries omitted from Federal List-I

Four new subjects have been added to the federal Legislative List-II(Shared responsibility through CCI).

1. All regulatory authorities established under a Federal Law.

2. Supervision and management of public debt.

3. Standards in institutions for higher education and research, scientific and technical institutions.

4. Inter-Provincial matters and coordination

Shared ownership in oil, gas and territorial waters(Article 172). Say in water management (Article 155) Power generation (Article 157).

Resources distribution for provinces(7th NFC, control over natural resources, GST on services, duties in respect of succession to property, estate duty in respect of property, power gains, power to raise loans etc.)

Strengthened Council of Common Interests with mandatory quarterly meetings. Concepts of shared responsibility

Window of Inter-Provincial Co-ordination

Provincial say in emergency related provisions, Governor and Senators to be from the same province.

Democracy Delivers:

There was a commitment to abolish the Concurrent List within 10 years after the enactment of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan on August 14, 1973. the deadline passed as on August 14, 1983, the constitution was in abeyance under military regime.

Practically the original and cleaned Constitution of 1973 has worked only for five years. From August 14, 1973 till July 5, 1977 i.e Four years and two months). In this way Pakistani democracy can rightly take a pride that it is fulfilling its commitment to the people of Pakistan within only 5-Years.

Rest of the period was either an era of suspended constitution or hybrid military regimes and diluted democracy under the infamous 8th Amendment during Zia regime.

July Symbolism (On July 1, 1970 centralized One Unit was abolished). Designated as Day of Provincial Autonomy.

Tale of Two Devolution!

Devolution Vs Devolution

2000-2008 Donor driven, exclusionist(43 cantonments, federal capital, FATA, GB out of the ambit(, by-passed provinces, lacked fiscal power., ostensibly non-party based but highly partisan, totally new institutional architecture, recycled rot elite.

2010-Democratic demand driven(Charter of democracy), across the board political consensus, empowered provinces with increased fiscal powers.

No new institutional architecture. Already line ministries/department exists at provincial level.

Policy, legislative, and provincial autonomy to provinces.

The Way Farward: Time to Wake-Up

Trust provinces(transfer has been completed by June 30, 2011, first ever constitutional deadline realized) Transition institutional and human capital i.e provincial services, and transformation frderal mindset, culture: ON-GOING.

Take democratic devolution down to to district (Article 140-A).

Provinces can come to federation (Article 147 to be endorsed by the Provincial Assembly)

Constitutional Amendments (19th Amendment is an example)

Facilitate transition(Cost of devolution, hand holding etc. The CCI has done it.)

Allow ‘de fecto concurrency’ or Inter-Provincial Co-operation

“Federalism Test” for future national projects

Reform politics and parties

Strengthen provincial civil services

Pro-active civil society and media(Right to Information and Right to Education)

New Pakistan is making

Understand it, grasp the opportunity and contribute to realize it

Perform or perish

Federalism/democracy is always a work in progress. Countries are not carved on stone, rather they are organic and dynamic. They always reform to respond to new challenges.

Remember DINOSAURS were huge, but they perished when they lost their compatibility.

Final message:

Time has arrived to

Democratize Pakistani Democracy

It is possible only when we all will become

Active and Effective Citizens

However, rolling the folios of the precedent enables one to grasp some facts about its underpinning, and after getting even the slightest idea about it, one cannot resist to bow his head in “admiration” of the “services”, the dictators rendered for this “noble” cause of providing the breeding grounds to the extremists, who on one hand pose a threat to the stability of Pakistan and of the world at large, but also have added a black stain on the name of the religion. It is, at times, improbable to comprehend the role of international community in this context, who, despite fighting a global war against terrorism have at times, supported the dictatorship in Pakistan. Let’s rummage in our near past to probe more into the veracity.

Four times in history, Washington has supported military dictatorship in Pakistan. Three times the US acted out of perceived self-interest to constrain communism. Islamabad enjoyed the support of Washington because General Musharraf’s military regime was viewed as a vital asset in fighting extremism and contributing to regional and global security. Some argue that extremism can better be confronted by a military backed regime. As such, a controlled dictatorship is seen as a stable and reliable ally, as opposed to a truly elected government that has the support of the people. However, it is a strategic miscalculation that has had a negative impact in the battle against violent fanaticism, posing grave dangers both to Pakistan and the larger world community. It certainly makes Pakistan uncomfortable that whether it is John Reid the Shoe bomber, or Tanweer the tube bomber, or Khalid Sheikh the CEO of Al Qaeda, or the German plot – unfortunately the steps lead back to our country. But none of these high-profile terrorist acts took place when Shaheed Mohtarmah Benazir Bhutto was the Prime Minister of Pakistan. The attacks on the World Trade Towers, the Cole ship at Yemen, the embassies in Africa, the blasts in Bombay and in the Indian Pearl took place when she was in opposition.

Since 9/11 the Musharraf regime professed support for confronting militancy. But actions on the ground have not matched the rhetoric. Indeed, the only Government that had ever signed an actual peace treaty with the Taliban and al Qaeda militants, against the natives of its own state, was the Musharraf’s regime in Islamabad. Large sections of Pakistan’s tribal areas had been ceded to non Pakistanis in the Taliban and Al-Qaeda militias. In fact, after defeat and demoralization following the fall of the Kabul, these violent elements re-organized themselves under the shadow of the military regime. They conduct suicide attacks within Pakistan killing innocent people. Military dictatorship fueled extremism. A democratically elected government enjoying the support of the people could bring peace to the people of Pakistan and eliminate extremism – eliminate terrorism by taking extremism off the radar screen of the region.

Benazir Bhutto was the civilian female leader of a democratic Pakistan that invested political capital in the tribal areas that a military regime has failed to control. As Prime Minister, she brought the rule of law and the fruits of development to the people in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Her government broke up the international drug cartel’s militias that reasserted themselves under the Musharraf rule and had been funding Al – Qaeda to have a macro-fiefdom. Her Administration brought the authority of the government and the rule of law to FATA in the 1990s. And she could have done it again. As Prime Minister she took the necessary steps to close down political madrasas whose curriculum taught hatred and para-military terrorist techniques. She did this before they became a threat to the world community. She considered them a threat to the stability, security and progress of the people of Pakistan. Since the dismissal of her government by military hardliners that had fought the Afghan Jihad of the eighties, there has been an explosion in these militant training schools, educating a successor generation of extremists, reinforcing irregular armies in Pakistan who have made my nation the Petri dish of the international extremist movement.

General Musharraf’s team, many of them linked to a military dictatorship of the eighties, which founded the Afghan Mujahideen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, presided over the rise of political Madrasas and private militias while neglecting social issues and governance. The people of Pakistan wanted a government that could build a school system giving their children a chance for a better life. Education was the centerpiece of Benazir Bhutto’s social agenda. Her government built 48,000 primary schools in its two stints in government. General Musharraf tried convincing the world that he was the only thing standing in the way of an extremist takeover of a nuclear armed Pakistan. In fact military rule is the cause of this anarchic situation in Pakistan. Extremism thrives under dictatorship. When Osama Bin Laden declared war on Musharraf, it made the West rally around Musharraf’s dictatorship. This in turn extended the environment that enabled Osama to thrive. Neither Musharraf nor Osama Bin Laden wanted democracy for their own reason. One considered democracy a threat to his dictatorship; the other considered democracy a threat to the environment of chaos and fear in which he thrived. Both knew that the people of Pakistan never supported dictatorship or extremism.

Each of Pakistan’s four military dictatorships assaulted the major infrastructural building blocks of democracy – by attempting to marginalize political parties, dismantling NGO’s and undermining civil society, by constraining labor and student unions, and allowing the intelligence agencies and government members to physically assault and intimidate the free press. It is only dictatorships which have used the Islamic card to legitimize their rule at the expense of the neglected people of Pakistan. Dictatorships, lacking a popular base, need the religious card, played in one shape or another, to justify their stranglehold on power. They need a crisis to obtain international support, both political and financial.

The Musharraf dictatorship like its predecessors only established the prerequisites for the radicalization of Pakistani society. As our people continued to be deprived of basic political and human rights, and as the social needs of our working families go unmet, people lost faith in the ability of government to respond to their needs. When they lost faith, they became hopeless, they became desperate and they did tend to become vulnerable to the hysterical appeals of extremists. Under their watch religious extremists have expanded in Pakistan. Radical mosques and madrasas have been encouraged as an alternative to recognized political institutions. They are awash in money and weapons while the people of Pakistan bear the burden of unemployment, inflation, poverty and hunger. When Pakistanis gather to pray on Friday in the mosques they are often subjected to long lectures by radical clerics appointed by the government even as the government claims publicly to be against extremism. The voices of moderation are exiled or imprisoned. The voices of extremism are protected.

And because Shaheed Mohtarmah Benazir Bhutto was an exemplar of a liberal & progressive Pakistan, free from such vultures, hunting the humankind, she was brutally assassinated by the terrorists, assisted by the Government of the time. No one can refute the fact that martyrs live an eternal life, Benazir’s legacy survives and is a bright light, amidst all the sinister pavements, guiding her followers to fights for the rights of their nation and to depict the true image of the Islam. Indeed, one cannot close their ogles to the achievements of President Asif Ali Zardari in this regards and his commitment to combating the terrorism from the very soil of Pakistan:- “ A freely elected democratic government, with the support and mandate of the people, working with democracies all over the world, is determined to build a viable, economic prosperous Pakistan that is a model to the entire Islamic world on what can be accomplished in giving hope to our people and opportunity to our children. We can become everything that al-Qaeda and the Taliban most fear — a vision of a modern Islamic future. Our people, our government, our military, our intelligence agencies are very much united. Some abroad insist that this is not the case, but they are wrong. Pakistanis are united. Together, our nations have suffered and sacrificed. We have fought bravely and with passion and commitment. Ultimately we will prevail.

For, in the words of my martyred wife Benazir Bhutto, “truth, justice and the forces of history are on our side.””

One cannot indeed, rebuff the actuality:

- “Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror.” – Shaheed Mohtarmah Benazir Bhutto

The dismal situation today is feeding nostalgia for Musharraf. Was his rule worth it? Not for democracy-idealists like me! However, since many people can tolerate dictatorships if they deliver, I consider this question pragmatically. Even pragmatically, dictatorship cannot be a permanent feature in Pakistan—more polycentric than Africa where dictators rule forever— where it has a shelf life of 10 years due to external and internal pressures (even from army ranks). But dictators do have greater powers as they control ISI and can take decisions without worrying about vote banks or parliamentary strength. Thus, due to both reasons, it is not enough if dictatorships out-perform democracies during their tenure. They must effect structural changes which benefit the country in the long-term. This was the stated objective of all our dictators and actual contribution of Asian dictators, whose performance stokes much of our fondness for dictators. Thus, I judge Musharraf by his legacies and not character, intentions, efforts or even immediate results, which may be better than politicians. Viewed so, that things are so bad so soon after him is as much proof of his lack of legacies as of the incompetence of successors. However, let us take a deeper look to be fair to him.

Politically, some of his legislations have endured, such as neutral caretakers. However, his main political scoresheet on the one hand consists of an absence of legacies, as on Kashmir, in reforming politics despite tall promises, in increasing the capacity and independence of bureaucracy through constitutional cover, or even in tackling dacoities. On the other hand, it is in the form of negative legacies, e.g., Taliban insurgency due to his earlier support to them; Balochistan insurgency; distortion of constitution; and attacks on media and judiciary, whom he should have strengthened to act as checks later on if he was serious about durable change.

Economic management improved over the 1990s. The averages of GDP growth, foreign-reserves-GDP, FDI-GDP, current-account-deficit-GDP, fiscal-balance-GDP, and public-debt-GDP ratios improved and poverty reduced significantly (this last point is contested). However, Pakistan also faced a more favorable external environment under him. Long-standing US sanctions were dropped after 9/11, which led to significant economic inflows from US, World Bank/IMF and western markets. These initially politically-facilitated inflows helped improve foreign reserves, public debt and current account. Second, the global economy and developing countries overall performed better until 2007 than in 1990s. Thus, luck also contributed to improved performance under Musharraf. To gauge its contribution, it is instructive to look at indicators for the first two years of Musharraf before 9/11. However, even a democratic government would have achieved at least somewhat better results over the 1990s due to luck. This reduces the credit due to Musharraf even on the less stringent criterion of tenure to tenure comparisons.

In terms of legacy criterion, since many indicators above improve even otherwise, I look for structural changes in fiscal health, industrialization, export-competiveness and human capital. While the fiscal-deficit-GDP ratio improved, average tax-GDP ratio deteriorated. Thus, fiscal balance improved by slower public expenses growth and external aid. The first is not desirable as we must spend more on education, social services, infrastructure etc. The second is not as sustainable as increasing tax-GDP ratio. An increase in tax net with constitutional cover would have been a legacy difficult to reverse. Similarly, average manufacturing-GDP ratio barely increased while average fixed-investment-GDP (though increased during 2005-07) and export-GDP ratios went down. Thus, current account situation improved as imports grew slower than exports and not because of greater export-orientation. Again, a major industrial and export expansion would have been difficult to reverse. However, much incoming resources went to consumer loans, instead of export industries, unlike in Asian Tigers who tightened consumption initially. Poor basic education fuels militancy and economic stagnancy. However, the education-expense-GDP ratio remained stagnant (Analysis based on World Bank and SBP data).

In summary, the only enduring economic legacy is contested reductions in poverty at macro-level. True, micro-level analysis highlights worthwhile initiatives in higher education/infrastructure etc. However, they did not improve economic fundamentals even after 9 years as there was no industrial strategy—the recipe behind the success of Tiger dictators. In its absence, external resources created consumer credit, stocks and property bubbles that later burst. This failure to even devise a strategy in 9 years is the biggest rebuttal to the ‘if only he had more time’ argument and a reality check to anyone imaging that Musharraf put Pakistan on the path of Tigers. Asian dictators, armed with strategies, effected structural change in 5-10 years. The absence of structural change despite greater external resources, powers and longer tenure than single democratic governments means that his performance on legacy criterion was poorer.

More importantly, all three dictatorships produced similar results. Being illegal, they distorted political process to survive. Realizing that army in polycentric Pakistan cannot rule alone, they propped fringe politicians less popular but as dishonest as ones dismissed. Consequently, governance quality degenerated. Even this arrangement didn’t work and they finally had to bring back mainstream parties. None left behind significant economic legacies beyond temporary improvements achieved partly due to American support (for the first time USA is now heavily supporting a democratic regime in Pakistan). However, even these were erased by the high cost of political strife induced by dictatorships.

None of this means that democracy brings immediate results. The current performance dispels that illusion, even after factoring in global recession and Musharraf’s negative legacies. But it does mean that somewhat better non-structural economic performance—the maximum that dictatorships achieve in Pakistan–is worth sacrificing for the long-term stability that democracy brings. In fact, some political dividends are already apparent, e.g., the tiny steps towards reconciliation in Balochistan, and greater resolve on militants at least from a federal government unbeholden to militants (unlike Musharraf). However, the overall incompetence shows how far we have to go. Give all this, I prefer corrupt politicians to honest dictators—in the hope that decades of democracy will throw up better politicians. Fortunately, the external environment is less tolerant of dictatorships and future dictators will find it difficult to even produce economic mirages (budding dictators, beware). So my advice is to stop praying for dictatorships and pray for improved democracy.

Dr. Niaz Murtaza is a Research Associate on political economy issues at University of California at Berkeley. murtazaniaz@yahoo.com. This article recently appeared in Dawn.

Indeed, the Pakistani nation owes to the great woman of substance Mohtarma Nusrat Bhutto_ who, _ from the commencement, bore great hardship for the cause of a Pakistan, where there was a self-ruled Government_ a Pakistan, free from unawareness and ailments, a Pakistan_ where women were given respect, a Pakistan_ where the dejected ones got justice, a Pakistan_ where everyone had the basic facilities of life and a Pakistan, where Bread, Clothing and Shelter were accessible to all. Certainly, the same Pakistan_ The same kind of Pakistan was the apparition of our Quaid e Awaam_ our party’s founder Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and yes!! One cannot refute this verity too that accomplishing this vision requires an extra deal of resistance to every sort of snag, for the way, leading to the purpose of a flourishing Pakistan is not an easy one_ this route is filled with complications and giving up means giving up every likely hope for a vivid future.

The world might not have elapsed the great instants of November 25, 1967 , when the party was formed for the poor and common people of Pakistan_ providing a prospect for all to gather under the flag of PAKISTAN PEOPLES PARTY. The underpinning was not easy too, the leadership suffered a lot in the preliminary stages, but God assists those, who help themselves and He always supports the right_ He’s always with impartiality_ the party succeeded in putting an end to the authoritarianism of Ayub Khan and after the massive triumph of PPP in the upcoming elections, the PPP got an opportunity to make Pakistan, one of the strongest nations of the world, but that wasn’t just to say_ democracy has always faced stern challenges in Pakistan and the government faced a major obstacle in the form of Zia ul Haq , who not only threw up an elected Government, but also snatched from the world, a gleaming leader_ The tiger of Asia_ Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto – “The LEADER of the PEOPLE”.

That April 4 , 1979 transformed the political phase of Pakistan and from there followed great decades of sufferings and catastrophes for the Iron lady of Pakistan Nusrat Bhutto Isphahani , who firstly, lost her husband_ while struggling for Pakistan and thereafter, fighting for righteousness_ that woman_ that wife, who wasn’t even permitted to see her martyred husband at the last moments _ it was the same woman, who valiantly fought for the revival of democracy, along with her young daughter Benazir Bhutto. The trail , leading to this was too unsympathetic_ it was filled with blood and this thrash about made her lose all her valuables_ she lost her vigor_ for during strikes, even the women were beaten viciously on the thoroughfares under the instructions of the so called President – General Zia ul Haq _ Is this called his so- called Islamization that against the verdicts of Islam, women were desecrated, but at last, a point came, when the soldiers rebuffed to recognize his orders, and instead, paid acknowledgment to the greatness of those women, who were struggling for their nation_ what a larger blight is meant for those autocrats than this…???

It was the same audacious woman, who lost her young sons, Shahnawaz and Murtaza, _ the rationale, well known to everybody that democratic system is the outlawed crop for the establishment of Pakistan , which when found no other way to smother it_ went on adding blood to the Bhutto inheritance_ to the bequest of the Pakistan Peoples Party. Later, the PML-N Government, lead by Nawaz Sharif left no effort of adding on her encumbers, more cases of corruption, which were scarcely in her acquaintance_ this day, this lady is a victim of a stroke and Alzheimer’s disease_ that mother, who after losing two young sons has even lost her beloved Benazir_ her Pinky, but is oblivious that she, now dwells under the soil of Garhi Khuda Bux Bhutto.

This day_ My empathy cracks into trillions to say that March 23, 1929 gave birth to a woman_ merely for facing hardships_ losing all her adored ones, but undeniably, she is a LIVING MARTYR and I behold if anyone covets to see a martyr on the surface of Earth_ in this present world, let him gaze at Nusrat Bhutto_ who has lost all_ lost her everything for Pakistan.

“HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO THE IRON LADY OF PAKISTAN”.

Your struggle & sacrifices would always remain a golden part of PPP’s History of Blood!

Jeay Bhutto.
Sada Jeay Bhutto!