Frontline

Jan- Feb 2002 
Cover Story


      Other Boxes
     
1)
‘For the first time in several Years, Pakistan’s youth freely celebrated the New Year’
      2) Where are the liberal, peace-loving Indians?
      3) ‘Liberals in India must raise their voice against war’
      4) ‘No one in Pakistan wants a war’

‘Action against jihadis was essential 
for Musharraf’s own survival’


IA REHMAN

Director, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan & core
member, Pak–India People’s Forum for Peace and Democracy

The factors contributing to General Musharraf’s Jan. 12 declarations need to be understood. Pakistani civil society has been for long pointing out that militant groups operating under the
garb of religion were functioning like a state within a state and, therefore, it was imperative to disband them. The army top brass realised this but could not proceed against these militias for two reasons.

First, it was believed that the militants were too powerful to be disciplined, partly because of their own accumulated power and partly because of their sympathisers within the armed forces. Secondly, since the militants were being used by a defence agency in Afghanistan and elsewhere, action against them was considered contrary to the strategy the regime had inherited from Zia–ul–Haq and which it had accepted without questioning.

The US operations against Taliban brought home to General Musharraf the futility of and dangers in employing the militants anywhere. Action against them became necessary not only in the interest of Pakistan’s integrity but also for guaranteeing the survival of the Musharraf regime itself.

A more significant factor was the Pakistani people’s rejection of the Taliban and their supporters in the country. Except for small groups of people in Peshawar and Quetta who were directly associated with the Taliban, there were no demonstrations in the latter’s support elsewhere in the country.

The message from Pakistani civil society was clear — it considered the militants a grave threat to the political, social and economic interests of the population. This gave General Musharraf the confidence, as he subsequently admitted, to deal and deal directly with the militants.

Hence the Jan. 12 address. The general has followed it up with measures to placate the non-Muslim population, women activists and a section of liberal opinion through electoral reform proposals. This has far–reaching implications as it means reducing the clerics’ role in domestic politics.

Since these measures are necessary in the interest of the survival of his regime, General Musharraf’s change of course is credible to a considerable extent. But the sincerity and adequacy of these measures over a long period remains to be tested.

Urban–educated professionals, businesspersons and women’s organisations are sections from civil society who have vocally welcomed the steps against the fanatical forces. The rural masses have no way of articulating their views.

What is significant is that the religious parties have not been able to throw a public challenge to the steps that Musharraf has announced and even taken. Two of their prominent leaders — Qazi Husain Ahmad, head of Jamaat–e–Islami, and Maulana Fazlur Rahman, head of Jamiat Ulema–e–Islam, have been detained. But their parties have failed to organise any significant demand for their release.

Eventually, the success of the regime’s new look strategy will depend on the revival of the economy, increase in employment and the administration’s ability to gain public trust in its efficiency and integrity and degree of its respect for the under–privileged. n     

TOP

‘For the first time in several Years, Pakistan’s youth freely celebrated the New Year’

BM KUTTY

Trade Unionist

I personally feel that President Musharraf ‘s comments, telecast in his TV address on January
12, on the religious extremist and jihadi groups in Pakistan were seriously meant as were the steps he announced to curb their activities.

Times have changed and, under pressure or by conviction, no matter which, Musharraf’s speech and subsequent statements, I believe, reflect the thinking of the majority of the people of Pakistan who are good Muslims but not fundamentalists.

Broadly speaking, the Pakistani people have supported the steps announced by Musharraf. The liberal, secular, politically active ones have welcomed the steps; some whole–heartedly, others on condition that Musharraf should also take firm steps to restore the democratic order.

For the first time in several years, Pakistan’s youth celebrated the New Year in a free and peaceful environment, without being subjected to violence by armed mullahs and the police. A clear sign of the sea change on the ground. So, the youth too is backing the change.

There are also some interesting and noteworthy examples of conservatives behaving moderately in the present context. For example, Allama professor Tahirul Qadri of Pakistan Awami Tehreek, is a genuine Islamic scholar running a huge madrassa with a whole complex of computers and other gadgets of modern information technology. He has come out in full public support of Musharraf’s measures.

The whole range of Muslim Leaguers — old and new — fully support Musharraf’s measures. Today, all except the Muslim League of Nawaz Sharif are supporting Musharraf’s anti–fundamentalist measures. So is Imran Khan of Pakistan Tehreek–i–Insaf, former Pakistan President Farooq Leghari of Millat Party, Malik Meraj Khalid, former Prime Minister, Mustafa Jatoi, former Prime Minister and a host of others who are good practising Muslims but totally opposed to fundamentalism and hence supportive of Musharraf’s measures.

Even maulanas like Maulana Shah Ahmed Noorani of Jamiat–ul–Ulema, Pakistan (Barelvi Group), though making loud noises, are simply not willing to come into the streets to support the jihadis of the Deoband school. So, in the ultimate analysis, only the different factions of the Deoband School are on one side and the rest of the Muslims on the other.

As matters stand today, Musharraf is going ahead with his government’s New Agenda, no matter what the sceptics in India, especially the ‘experts’ of the electronic media, have to say. Their counterparts on the Pakistani side, too, have been expressing reservations but have no alternatives to offer. n

TOP

Where are the liberal, peace-loving Indians?

ANEES HAROON
Feminist, peace activist

The present scenario has strengthened the position of liberals in Pakistani society. During the
Afghan war, jihadi groups were dominant on the scene. There were large demonstrations in all the major and smaller cities of Pakistan and they were able to bring thousands of people on to the roads. They could paralyse any city; law and order could be disrupted anywhere.

The liberals too organised anti–war demos but only in few hundreds. Karachi and Islamabad had the biggest congregation of peace activists, but even these were not more than a thousand to five thousand people. But after the defeat of the Taliban the jihadis have collapsed like a house of cards. Every time we had general elections, no Islamist party was voted in. But we all agreed that they had street power. Some of us viewed them as pigmies and never ever felt threatened but for most there was the real fear of Talibanisation of Pakistan. But once protection from the establishment (one or the other agency) was withdrawn and financial channels were cut they really fizzled out.

This is the time for liberals to strike back and re-claim their space. It is possible only if there is peace. Any war with India will again snatch the initiative away from their hands. War-machinery and jihad go together.

Here no one wants war with India. It is not in the interests of the people. The fear of nuclear warfare between India and Pakistan is threatening the region. If we can somehow break the cycle of hatred and war, we may be able to build an environment of peace, enlightened and liberal politics.

We the people of India and Pakistan need to do that: Reaffirm our faith in peace and democracy and pressurise our governments to refrain from war mongering. In Pakistan, liberals have always been vocal against establishment policies. But it is a general feeling that we do not get the same response from Indian activists. They somehow defend their government and do not see the authoritarian and hegemonic trends. Well, there are exceptions but the voice has to come through loud and clear.

In Pakistan these days, there are frequent anti-extremist and anti–war demos. Indians, too, need to put more pressure on the BJP government to withdraw all anti–people actions such as the termination of means of communication between the two countries. And how about banning extremist, militant Hindu groups like the RSS, the VHP and the Bajrang Dal in India? n

TOP

‘Liberals in India must raise their voice against war’

DR MUBARAK ALI
Pakistani historian

President Musharraf indicated his intention to introduce liberal reforms just after he took
power but refrained from doing so because of threats from the right–wing opposition. In the Pakistani army, there was and still is, a strong group that wants Pakistan to become a full–fledged theocratic state. The Agra summit gave Musharraf legitimacy. He was supported in that endeavour by all religious parties. The situation changed only after September 11 when he got both support as well as severe pressure from the United States to rein in the jihadis.

Following this, he first removed ultras from important posts and he is now trying to exert control on the extremists. These steps culminated in his January 12 address to Pakistan and the world, including our neighbours.

Liberal groups in Pakistan are vocal but very weak. Many have no roots among the people. Hence this section is silently supporting Musharraf, hoping that he may complete their agenda.

Two mass-based political parties, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League (PML) have no clear agenda, apart from being opportunist rivals; hence they are silent. They are neither supporting nor opposing the present government in the radical steps that it has initiated. Both parties do in fact hope that they can strike some deal with the army and thereby come to power later this year.

Equally, despite their aggressive rhetoric, religious parties in Pakistan too have no mass support, and hence have retreated since Musharraf’s aggressive stance. Until now, the jihadis have depended on the financial support of the Arab shaikhs and active help of supporting local agencies. Bereft of financial support and patronage from these sources, they are expected to simply crumble. They do not enjoy any public sympathy as most of them have deteriorated into armed criminal gangs misusing the name of faith.

However, the rank hostility displayed by the Indian leadership combined with the extremely shrill demands being made by it may generate an unfavourable atmosphere and resentment since the Pakistani people would not like to see their government being brought under undue Indian pressure. Within Pakistan, there is a general feeling that this is the time for liberal groups in India to raise their voice against war and demand that their government re-open all routes and avenues of people–to–people access. n

TOP

‘No one in Pakistan wants a war’

PROF. S HAROON AHMED
Founder member of the international group, Physicians for
Nuclear Disarmament

In Pakistan, where none of the religio–political parties were able to win even a single seat in the assemblies, jihadis and fundamentalists were still very powerful. They were patronised by one or the other power base — now popularly referred to as ‘agencies’, or funded from abroad.

According to a recent estimate, we may have 80 plus religious parties in Pakistan. In 1947, there were 245 madrassas, which increased to 2,861 in 1988 and 6,761 by the year 2000. The people of Pakistan had no say, nor liked the armed presence of such parties within civil society.

Then came Sept. 11 and in it’s search for Osama bin Laden, the US attacked Afghanistan. Pakistan was inducted into the alliance and bases were provided. In the early stages of American bombing on Afghanistan there was considerable confusion. "The bombing in Afghanistan will usher civil war in Pakistan" was one very strong view. However, the collapse of the Taliban as easily as it came, blew the air out of the vociferous outpourings of religious parties.

In the atmosphere post–Sept. 11, the terrorist attack on the Parliament in New Delhi on December 13 was a rude shock. It was the very last thing that any government or citizen in Pakistan would have expected. Temperatures within India have been raised to near uncontrollable levels. Memories of Kargil are still fresh. In Pakistan there is a strange quiet and detachment — neither the government nor the public expects a war!

However, the posture that India has taken is very threatening for all of South Asia. The hot pursuit, limited war, war with conventional weapons, or all out nuclear Holocaust are stages which can quickly follow each other if skirmish is sparked off accidentally or stupidly. And then there will be no going back.

Many among the liberal intelligentsia would like to see in the present circumstances a unique opportunity to resolve the issue of ‘cross border’ interference. It is in this context that President Musharraf’s address of Jan. 12 must be seen.

Even if his stance has been forced, it is a serious development. The establishment may or may not like it but the common man in Pakistan wants Musharraf to pursue his earlier and recent pronouncements against jihadis, madrassas, ritualistic mullahs and their so-called religious–cum–political parties. He has said that the jihadi outfits have brought Islam a bad name and killed more people than reformed them. It is in the interest of the silent majority in Pakistan and in South Asia that the road map towards a democratic process within Pakistan charted by this government is not abandoned or diverted. n

TOP


[ Subscribe | Contact Us | Archives | Khoj | Aman ]
[ Letter to editor  ]
Copyrights © 2001, Sabrang Communications & Publishing Pvt. Ltd.