Deal with militants emboldens opposition
Dramatic events over the past week since militants began calling the shots in the Malakand division on the northern fringe of Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) - which includes the Swat Valley - have already had an effect on political developments in other parts of the country.
Just over a week ago, the NWFP's provincial government gave in to the demands of militants and announced a ceasefire, lifted a two-year-old curfew and announced the implementation of Islamic sharia law. For their part, the militants agreed to a 10-day ceasefire, which has reportedly now been declared permanent.
In another development resulting from the Malakand accord, a mujahideen shura (Shura Ittehad al-Mujahideen) council was formed this weekend due to the personal efforts of Sirajuddin Haqqani. His network is the most resourceful and strongest component of the Taliban-led Afghan resistance, and has long-standing links to Pakistan. Other members of the council include pro-Pakistan militants such as Moulvi Nazeer and Hafiz Gul Bahadur and, importantly, Pakistan Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, who has fought against Pakistani troops in the tribal areas.
The shura decided that the leaders would combine forces for a joint struggle against coalition forces in Afghanistan and end hostilities against Pakistan.
Meanwhile, the government has sent the first installment of a compensation package for militants in Swat worth 480 million rupees (US$6 million). It will be used to pay the families of those killed and injured by security forces and those who lost property.
Political parties have seized on the mood in NWFP, where the central government in Islamabad is perceived as having lost most of its writ, to force their own agendas.
The premier Islamic party - the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) - has taken a lead role in a campaign by lawyers to have Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the chief justice who was sacked in 2007 by president General Pervez Musharraf, reinstated. The JI believes this volatile issue could boost its popularity in urban centers.
In this atmosphere, Pakistani Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani travels to Washington this week for meetings with senior officials aimed at protecting the US's plans for the region.
Cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan captured the mood succinctly during a television talk show. "God is great! [US Assistant Secretary for State for South and Central Asian Affairs] Richard Boucher and [former state secretary] Condoleezza Rice set up a coalition of secular and liberal parties [in Islamabad] to block the march of Islamization and the Taliban. ... That setup has single-handedly enforced Islam and led to a signed agreement with the Taliban."
This is a clear defeat for the American war in the region, but nobody is ready to accept responsibility, with the Pakistani coalition government criticizing the army for not taming the militants. The Barack Obama administration now faces the prospect of an unending stream of fighters entering Afghanistan from Pakistan without obstruction.
Jamaat-i-Islami on the offensive
The JI, considered the country's most organized political force, especially in street agitation, is gearing up to mobilize its cadre against the Pakistan People's Party-led government when lawyers next month begin a march and sit-in in Islamabad over the reinstatement of Iftakar Muhammad Choudhary. The JI aims to hijack the lawyers' movement to revive its strength in key urban centers such as Karachi, Lahore and Rawalpindi, the capital's twin city.
HNN contacts maintain that top decision-makers in Washington have said the situation is bleak and they want some answers from Kiani, whose appointment was forced on Musharraf by the US as he was perceived as being pro-US. This will be the Pakistan military's first direct contact with the US administration since Kiani took over in late 2007.
Pakistani government officials in private conversations with Washington have blamed Kiani for not launching any "genuine" military operations against the militants, a situation which left them with no choice but to bow to the demands of the militants.
US Ambassador to Islamabad Anne W Peterson has also been urgently summoned to Washington and she will take part in these important discussions.
"After Musharraf, neither the Indians nor the Americans knew who was in charge of the country. The army chief's visit aims to sort out this problem with a clear-cut strategy,” a source said of Kiani's visit.
Whether Kiani is the man to do this is another matter. In conversations with senior representatives of the media, he has indicated that the military does not want to intervene in the affairs of the government.
The trouble is, the situation is rapidly being controlled by non-state actors, and the agreement in Malakand is a major milestone in this regard.
The JI, which boycotted general elections early last year and therefore rapidly disappeared into political oblivion, has been quick to claim "ownership" of the Taliban's victory in Swat and other areas as a victory of Islamic forces.
Its chief in NWFP, Sirajul Haq, was the first leader to hold a press conference to endorse the agreement. The JI has also sent a message to all its members saying that the lawyers' protest should be the "Jamaat-i-Islami's show". The JI sees this as a turning point, where JI-led countrywide protests against the government could draw together scattered Islamic elements in the urban centers under its umbrella, much like the Taliban did in NWFP.
This means that a powerful nexus of militants and anti-American political forces is rising, which threatens to cripple the ability of the American allies in the Pakistan government to act in the US's favor.
HNN spoke to the JI's central vice president, a former federal minister and a senior former parliamentarian, Professor Ghaffour Ahmed, to explore how the JI aims to gain from the Swat deal. Ghaffour, 80, is a cost and management accountant and a pioneer of the Institute of Cost and Management Accountancy in Pakistan. He worked both at the faculty and as a top professional manager in the corporate sector.
HNN: What is your opinion of the Swat agreement? First, the militants used intense force against the state and as a result military operations were carried out. The militants then used the demand for the introduction of Islamic laws as a blackmailing tool and the government surrendered to their terms and conditions. What is your assessment?
Ghaffour Ahmed: I think your assessment is wrong. You know Swat was ruled by a leader wali [when it was a princely state]. Swat was annexed to Pakistan in 1969. Before that it was not part of Pakistan. From 1926 to 1968 Islamic laws were enforced in Swat. Qazi courts were present and justice was quick in those days.
When Swat was annexed to Pakistan, its civil and criminal laws were enforced. Cases of this nature went pending for years. As a result, there was a feeling in Swat that [its people were] being deprived of justice or that they were getting delayed justice. Even the justice they did get was very costly [lawyer, court fees etc] and filing a case could mean spending millions of rupees.
So the people were just demanding that they revert to the old system which was more compatible for them. As far as sharia is concern, the demand is not there only, it is mentioned in the 1973 constitution, approved by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's government, that Islam is the state religion of the country. It says all laws shall be framed according to the Koran and sunnah [traditions and sayings of the Prophet Mohammad]. It also mentioned that all laws which are un-Islamic shall be modified according to Islam. Therefore, their demand [in Swat] was neither unconstitutional nor illegal and there was nothing strange in it. The people only wanted justice, and quick justice.
Then there is another thing, the military operation. The US-led war on terror started over there. When an army initiates action in any area, especially in a place like Swat, which is not a tribal but an urban center, mostly innocent people are killed in the collateral damage. Every day, it was projected that the army had killed many terrorists and miscreants. However, they [the authorities] never gave their names. The reason is that they only killed innocent people. As a result of this operation, at least 350,000 people migrated.
HNN: Over 600,000 people migrated.
GA: I am just giving you a very conservative figure. These people were living in camps. After this peace agreement, there has been a wave of joy among them. I don't know whether this agreement will be successful or not, but the people are happy. Therefore, their demand was justified, legal and constitutional. None of their demands was against the law.
HNN: A statement issued to the press by Qazi Hussain Ahmed [the president of JI] condemned the acts of the Taliban in Swat, such as forcing people to grow beards and executions. He classified these as having nothing to do with Islam and its teachings.
GA: Who was doing such things?
HNN: The Taliban in Swat were blamed for this and for destroying schools and blowing up the shops of hairdressers.
GA: I think there is a lot of propaganda in this.
HNN: Sir, let me say, this is Qazi Hussain Ahmed's statement.
GA: Indeed, he might have issued that statement. I say that all those actions have nothing to do with Islam. Islam does not ask for force in such matters. It is true that there are certain things Islam does insist on, for instance children's schools. Almost 200 schools were destroyed in Swat. But nobody asks who built those schools. The people of Swat built the schools and the majority of them were privately owned - not by the government. The people of Swat were operating them, but suddenly the army occupied them. So the militants argued that those were no longer schools - they were merely buildings used by the army. You see, in such conditions a reaction is generated. You will have seen that such huge military operations failed to bring peace to the tribal areas.
HNN: I had the chance to visit those areas. I also got the chance to speak to militants. They say that they are against the existing education system in secular schools. They want an Islamic system of education. By an Islamic system of education they mean a madrassa brand of education, at least the majority of them believe that ...
[Ghaffour interrupts]
GA: I asked you the question, who built those schools? The 200 schools which were blown up were not Islamic seminaries ... those schools were built by the people of Swat.
HNN: But those schools were not built by the militants either.
GA: Yes, but the schools were built by the people of Swat. I mean to say here that the people there are not against schools. However, they want Islamic seminaries too. You have to appreciate that now even in the Islamic seminaries, different subjects like geography, science, maths and English are taught. Even graduates from the Islamic seminaries do master of arts degrees from universities and in some cases they become Phds.
HNN: I beg your pardon, but the secular syllabus is not part of the Islamic seminaries in North-West Frontier Province.
GA: You are talking about a region which is not under the control of the provincial government. The FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas] work under the president of Pakistan and the governor. It is beyond the government's writ. So please don't compare those areas with urban centers.
HNN: What do you think the impact of the Swat peace agreement will be on other urban centers of the country?
GA: Let this peace agreement be a success. This is an agreement with [cleric] Sufi Mohammad. Now there is a process of negotiations with the Taliban. So the talks have not been concluded yet. Neither has any draft of an agreement come out in public. When things come out in black in white, then we shall see how those things are implemented. However, there is one fact that people are happy about, and that is that military operations are over and life has come back to normal.
HNN: The West sees this as Pakistan's surrender to militants. There is a perception that Islamic parties may gain from this situation and use it in other places for their popularity.
GA: I think the West is against Islam and Muslim countries. Pakistan has been an ally of the United States since the Liaquat Ali Khan period [the first prime minister of the country from 1947-1951]. He refused the USSR's invitation and accepted an American invitation for his first visit [abroad]. Since then, all governments have insisted on better relations with the United States.
But on the other hand, see how the Americans behave with us. Even their help always comes with strings. The "war on terror" is a case in point. I fail to understand what the definition of terrorism is. To me, terrorism is all about killing innocent people. I asked America and the West when they invaded Afghanistan [in 2001], did they have any proof that the [September 11] attackers belonged to Afghanistan. To date, nobody knows who was actually responsible for that attack.
They attacked Afghanistan and forced Pakistan to support the war. Musharraf was the president and he was forced to provide logistical support. American aircraft flew from Pakistani bases and bombed Afghanistan. In that process, they destroyed the whole of Afghanistan.
The same happened in Iraq concerning WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and now they admit that it was wrong information, but on wrong intelligence they massacred millions of innocents. Is this not Western terrorism? Why does the West not question itself, that if they are powerful and they possess superior weaponry, does it mean that they can kill innocent human beings?
Now, after so much friendship, Pakistan is in the line of fire. Let us see how the new American administration frames its policies. As far as we are concerned, we don't want any hostilities with America and the West, but the fact of the matter is that they have never recognized the existence of Muslim countries on the political map of the world.
HNN: How do you assess the performance of the present government? It is said that the West set up the coalition of secular and liberal parties to provide popular support to the "war on terror". What is your opinion?
GA: No political party could get a decisive majority in parliament [in the February 2008 elections]. The ruling PPP has about 30% of the seats. After the elections, two majority parties emerged in parliament - the Pakistan People's Party and Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz group [PML-N]. The Pakistan Muslim League, whether you call it liberal or whatever, is the party which laid the foundation of this country on Islamic ideology.
These parties developed differences over the restoration of the chief justice. Therefore, the PML-N separated from the government and the government forged alliances with several smaller parties, and it is a very weak government.
I think the PPP government has made some very wrong decisions and it has antagonized the PML-N not only politically, but it is wrong in principle. The slain [former premier] Ms [Benazir] Bhutto had an agreement with the PML-N to restore the judges, so this is binding on the present government.
Even [President] Asif Zardari had announced that his government would restore the chief justice, but now he is pulling out of this. These factors caused disillusionment within the coalition government and forced the PML-N to resign, which weakened the government.
This apart, there are other factions which caused political disillusionment in this government. For instance, it deviated from its slogans of empowering parliament. Instead, Asif Zardari has retained all the powers as president that Musharraf acquired through the 17th amendment to the constitution. People wanted change after Musharraf. Unfortunately, that change could not happen in the system. Only faces were changed.
At the same time, due to his personal agendas, Zardari is also kicking out the old party leaders who were close to Ms Bhutto. Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan's membership in the central committee of the party has been suspended. Safdar Abbasi, Naheed Khan [political secretary of Ms Bhutto] are a few who have been practically separated from the PPP. All the new men around the government are Asif Zardari's personal friends, like Rahman Malik [a senator and powerful advisor on interior affairs].
HNN: This government is hardly one year old. There was a perception after the last elections that everything would be dealt with through parliament. But now from next month street protests are planned by the lawyers' movement and they are supported by the opposition parties. A sit-in is also planned in Islamabad. Don't you think this will destabilize the elected political setup?
GA: If you review the situation, you will find that the government did not fulfill any of its promises. A resolution was presented in the joint session of parliament and presented by the government [for the restoration of the judiciary]. It should have been very significant, but the government only formed a committee and then set aside the whole issue. What choice is there but street protests?
HNN: Can't you reprimand the government within parliament?
GA: Parliament appears as a rubber stamp.
HNN: Then why not try for a change of government through parliament?
GA: Nobody had a decisive majority but the government charmed smaller parties by giving them ministerial portfolios, so change is not possible through parliament.
HNN: Is it not unfortunate for this country that when an elected government is in place, politicians practice street politics and then allow the military establishment a chance to intervene?
GA: Street politics has always been a compulsion. Look at this lawyers' movement. This is not a new movement. It started on March 9 [2007] when the chief justice was made non-functional by then-president Musharraf. Since March 9, not a single glass has been smashed during rallies. There have been huge rallies, long marches, but you cannot cite me a single example of violence.
HNN: I beg to differ. In 1977 there was a huge opposition movement on the streets against the then Pakistan People's Party government led by Z A Bhutto. You were one of the main leaders of the movement and finally part of a team which held negotiations with the government. You documented the facts in your book that because of the agitation movement, the army got the chance to intervene, although the government and opposition had finalized a draft agreement. [Zia ul-Haq later imposed martial law and ruled for 11 years].
GA: You should read my book with concentration. I clearly mentioned that Bhutto made a blunder by after finalizing the terms of an agreement he did not sign the draft agreement. I was part of a three-member opposition committee holding the talks. I had warned Mr Bhutto that when he already had an agreement on everything, he should not delay in signing the documents [for the sake of proof-reading], otherwise martial law would be imposed. The army was looking for a chance.
They had already approached us. They were fully informed about the talks and contents and they tried to manipulate us as well. I personally explained this situation to Bhutto, that the military was looking for a chance to topple the government, so please take urgent steps. Although after the fall of East Pakistan [in 1971] and the humiliation they faced, we never expected that the army would fall into any more adventurism, such as imposing martial law, but this lust of power is very bad thing.
HNN: This is precisely my point. The military always looks for nuisances so unrest will spread, then they can conspire to take power. Don't you think once again that with the long march you will give the military a golden chance to exploit?
GA: I am emphasizing the same point. In 1977, the PPP government made a dire mistake which cost the country with martial law, and once again, if they don't comply with their promises, what chance does it leave for the people except street protests? Now the point is, are people wrong? Is not this the same demand, even put by Ms Benazir Bhutto, to restore the judiciary? Even Zardari committed to the same. So much so that a written agreement was signed, and then Zardari publicly said that the written agreement was not the Koran or the sayings of the Prophet Mohammad, which cannot be changed. So after such behavior, it is the government which needs to assess the consequences.
HNN: What is your choice. A bad democracy or good martial law?
GA: Martial law can never be good. Democracy has always been a choice. We don't want to abandon the government. It is neither against the government, parliament nor against Asif Zardari. It is just about the fulfillment of the promises this government made.
HNN: Are Islamic laws implemented through the barrel of a gun acceptable to you?
GA: Islamic laws are always enforced through the will of the people. You have to appreciate this fact, that the particular situation in Swat is the result of a vacuum because from 1926 to 1969 Islamic laws were enforced in Swat. After the merger of Swat into the state of Pakistan, the laws were changed, which resulted in a vacuum. This is Western propaganda, that Islam was spread through the sword. In fact, Islam has always been oppressed. There are 56 Muslim countries at the moment, all of them are oppressed, all are victims of Western oppressions.
NEXT: Crucial choices for the Jamaat-i-Islami.
No comments:
Post a Comment