Once Again that Begging Bowl

JASARAT
Editorial
November 30, 2006


Translated by: Syed Farooq Hasnat


The government has announced that for the initial stage of the construction of Kala Bagh Dam, it plans to borrow some million rupees from international donors. The government has specified the amount as according to each item. In recent years both General Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz have repeatedly said that they have done away with the begging bowl. General Musharraf claimed that now we are not a country that borrows but we have been included in the list of nations that give aid. As according to the above information we have once again presented the begging bowl in front of the international community. This situation is in spite of the fact that according to General Musharraf our economy has recovered, the foreign exchange reserves have touched record high, poverty has been reduced and the economic stability and prestige of the country is restored. We are begging for some million rupees, despite (the claim of recovery by General Musharraf). If we exchange this amount into dollars it becomes a very small total. After all what has happened to our foreign exchange reserves of 13 billion dollars?

Unfortunately, our rulers, especially the army dictators are habitual liars. They ascribe those feats to themselves, which does not exist at all. The important point is that they are begging for such a plan which is not there in any projection of the government and on top of it this plan is disputable. If seen from this angle the people are correct in thinking that General Pervaiz Musharraf is highlighting the Kala Bagh Dam project for politically gains in the next general elections. If this dam was so important for him, he could have started it seven years earlier. He now mentions Kala Bagh Dam for political gains.

ARMY: PAKISTAN AND AMERICA

NAWA-E-WAQT
February 28, 2005
(English translation from Urdu)

Ata-ur Rehman

Translated by: SYED FAROOQ HASNAT



Various governments of the United States as well as the Pakistani establishment have recognized Professor Stephen Cohen as an expert on South Asian Strategic and Defense affairs. The American scholar has enjoyed the goodwill of the Pakistani governments since the days of Zia ul Haq. In Washington, Reagan, Clinton and Bush administrations have sought his advice on Pakistan, in particular and the Indian matters in general. He is the author of books on Pakistan and India and his latest book “Idea of Pakistan”, Pakistan edition, was inaugurated, the other day in Lahore. To express his opinion, former Director General, ISI, Lt. General Asad Durrani came especially from Islamabad.

At the function, Stephen Cohen said that his interest in Pakistan and India developed during his student days. While at graduate level, the question that why the Pakistani army repeatedly interfered in politics and took control of power, while on the contrary the Indian army refrains from interfering in the matters of governance, remained his concern. The American Professor went on to say that after doing research and having written books on both the armies, he has come to the conclusion that the reason for army’s intervention in the Pakistani politics is the presence of the Punjabis in a large number. People belonging to one area and one ethnic stock have similar interests and thereby it becomes easy for them to coordinate and take control of the government. On the other side, the Indian army does not have an overwhelming presence of a large singular ethnic group, therefore it is not possible for the Indian army leadership to capture power. Even to interfere in politics becomes a hard task for them. Stephen Cohen did not mention, although it is written in the book “Idea of Pakistan” that one reason for the Army intervention in Pakistan was that the British had wrongly installed an impression that they (the Punjabis) belong to a “Martial Race”. This instilled emotion is also responsible (for them) to take a particular action.

We are not sure about Cohen’s theory but one aspect which this famous American Professor failed to mention is the American factor that always encourages the Pakistani Army Generals to capture power. Pakistan enjoys a unique strategic geographic position, which contributes towards the attainment of the American interests. Since 1950s the US policy makers realized that in order to gain maximum advantage from Pakistan, they must rely on the military establishment, which is more dependable than the politicians. Under this thinking, during 1953-1954 Pentagon and GHQ established a relationship of collaboration and Pakistan became a member of the American defense pacts. However, Pakistan did not gained any defense related or strategic benefits from these pacts. It is the result of this understanding that the Army leadership takes advantage of the situation and at will abrogates the constitution and also disperses the political institutions. If not backed by the Americans, perhaps this dictatorship would not have been our fate.

One of the audiences asked a question from Stephen Cohen about the American patronage of the military dictators. After hearing his response I thought that I was not listening to a dignified University Professor and a writer of various books but to an American bureaucrat. He said that it is wrong to say that the United States was behind military coups. He said that he was told by the America ambassador in Islamabad that they do not intervene; rather the (Pakistani) politicians tell them to proceed in a certain manner.

About army’s contribution (for the country), Stephen Cohen said that after the army comes in, there is a change in a sense that some decorative effects take place on the trees and shrubs of Islamabad, while some activities are streamlined. No change in the governance takes place, nor is there any fundamental rectification. The reason for this is that the army is not trained for the governance nor are they equipped with knowledge of that. The syllabus of the military academy and the staff college for senior officers does not include the matters of governance. In these places matters of defense are taught. Thereby, better results cannot be expected as the army is not trained for these affairs.

The American Professor said that Pakistan can have a better future and four measures are needed to implement the betterment.

Number one, the military should go back to the barracks and democracy is fully restored.

Number two, Pakistan must act to synchronize its educational institutions with the modern challenges. The present claims are more of a façade than a substantial reality.

Number three, It is true that micro economics has seen same activity but the requirement is that the bases of economics should be constructed on solid foundations and that it should effect the common person, eradicating poverty.

Number four, Extremism based on ethnicity should be curtailed.

All the suggestions by Professor Stephen Cohen are the requirements of our time. But the people of Pakistan can only achieve these goals as an independent and Sovereign State, if the American governments refrain from making the Pakistani establishment as their instruments and stop imposing their agenda upon us. Without it should just remain a sermon and we Pakistanis ourselves, are good at that.

An interesting moment at the function arose, when a member of a “Writer’s Club” and an English teacher of a local college asked a question. His query was that what would be the American reaction if Khalafat is established in Pakistan. Responding, Professor Cohen said that in his view it was not possible as the people of Pakistan do not agree on a particular brand of Islam. There are different sects, where they have their own interpretations. Former Director General of ISI and retired Lt. General Asad Durrani pointed out that the United States would extend its friendship, in any circumstances – notwithstanding the type of regime in Pakistan. He went on to say that when the slogan of Islam was raised during Zia ul Haq’s time, the United States was our ally, nor it is something else but the Americans have maintained their friendship with us. Before that at the end of his presentation, General Durrani had pointed out that the three As and the role of the army is presented in an exaggerated form.

In response to another question the General said that it is absolutely wrong to assume that in 1988, when Rajiv Gandhi visited Pakistan, the army leadership had declared Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, a security risk. This accusation came from her political opponent and in turn when Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was also called a security risk, it came from his political opponent, as well. General Durrani might have correctly stated but when I asked him a question during tea that is it true that an Army General attended a meeting of a working group of a political party and suggested ways and means to pressurize a political government? General Durrani asked which General and political party was I talking about! I responded that his name is mentioned and the political party is none other than Pakistan People’s Party. He categorically denied that he had anything to do with it. I further inquired that then why he did not issued a contradiction as he had done so regarding the matter of security risk. He responded that he does not issue rejoinders to any accusations. I started to recall that a name of a General was mentioned, accusing him of helping to bring together different groups into a single party - IJI. First he refused (to have) any role in the matter but later responded with a smile and now he does not even deny the involvement.

One Radicalism Leads to Another

Nawa-e-Waqt
November 13, 2006
Column in Urdu


Ata-ur-Rehman

Translated By

Syed Farooq Hasnat



General Pervaiz Musharraf says that the extremists will not be allowed to take the Pakistani society as a hostage, and that terrorism will be crushed with force. As far as extremism is concerned, the whole country has been a victim of it, ever since 8th October, 1958, when the Army declared Martial Law. Martial Law, by its self is an act of extremism. Today, the whole nation recognizes that there was no justification for Ayub Khan’s army government. This step was taken to sabotage the first general elections which were to be held in February 1959. As a result, regional extremism emerged which presented the six points of Shaikh Mujeeb ur Rehman in East Pakistan and as a consequence the country was split into two. In West Pakistan Buhtto’s slogan of bread, clothing and a house was raised but the poor could not achieve anything and whatever little industrial development existed was reversed. Even today, it has not been corrected.

Ayub Khan’s Martial Law was replaced by another and every effort for the supremacy of the constitution and restoration of democracy was frustrated. On every occasion, with the help of some turn coats, feudal and self seeking politicians the army rule was strengthen. An Islamic and democratic Pakistan, as it should have been, was made a puppet of the Americans. Under the governmental and administrative extremism, various extremist movements, organizations and tendencies came into being, which continue in the present circumstances, as well. It should be admitted that extremism, which General Musharraf is apprehensive about, is encouraged and promoted by the clandestine agencies operating under the military governments. It includes the linguist and ethnic extremism in the urban areas of Sindh and the nation wide spread of sectarian fanaticism. These have been directed by the hidden but influential personals.

Today, the effects of extremism are visible, confronting one extremism with another and for that general Musharraf is feeling uneasy. It should be understood that non democratic and unconstitutional system of government and extremist linguist and sectarian organizations are natural allies of each other. One cannot function without the other. The military governments need the support of extremist organizations after they remove the democratic government and people’s representatives, as these organizations cannot operate under a democratic setup. As a basic rule such organizations are initially dependent on the military governments but later they become close and equal allies of each other. When genuine organizations supported by the people are sidelined, a competitive struggle takes place between the military regime and the extremists, to fill the vacuum. The Army government is under the impression that they do not need the support of the extremists, while the competing extremists think that it is their prerogative to take control and that it cannot be reversed. Therefore, a clash takes place. General Musharraf desires that such popular and main stream leaders and politicians as Banazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif should stay out of the country and that these leaders should not pose a challenge to him and at the same time the extremist organizations should not replace these leaders. How is that possible!

As far as eliminating forcefully the so called terrorism is concerned, it can not be materialized by General Musharraf, especially when President Bush could not do it in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is the injury inflicted in Dergai in response to Bajour not enough to demonstrate? We should understand that terrorism as defined by Bush and Mush is not a casual affair – it is not a temporary tendency, rather it is a political philosophy, which came into being as a contemporary confrontational force. The reasons for the new movement are not religious but political. This new force can be dealt with solid and long lasting political measures. On the contrary, it will be strengthen with the use of pure force and will become a bigger challenge. The terrorist activities in Iraq changed the American politics. It became a big challenge for Bush as a President, not to talk of others. The so called terrorism is not prompted by the religion of Islam but by making the Palestinians, Kashmiris, Bosnia and the Chechnyans slaves by force through the process, action and policy. Terrorism will continue unless the fundamental rights of the Palestinians, rights to choose by the Kashmiris and the right of the Chechnyians to be independent in their own lands is not given. It is a struggle to attain the fundamental rights. These are rights that are accepted by the Charter of the United Nations and resolutions of the Security Council. The Muslims have arisen in armed revolt because their rights are totally denied by the coalition of these forces. On top of that the Americans have gone further by staging an armed attack and unjustifiably occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. After all, where is that international law or principle that forbade the unarmed citizens of an occupied country to resist against the occupation, as a last resort?

The suicide attacks are a weapon of the weak. If the unarmed and innocent are targeted from air and by missiles, it becomes difficult to stop the suiciders to wrap explosives around their bodies and blast themselves. When the Muslims fight their war to gain their rights, it will be called a Jihad but this matter has been blown out of proportion. If terrorism is to be eliminated in all its seriousness then solid and permanent political acts must be implemented.

The terrorist acts will be eliminated, when there is no justification for it. As far as the happenings in Pakistan are concerned, general Musharraf presented himself as an ally of the United States otherwise Pakistan should have no concern