|
|
|
A way out
The judiciary too has said that it will not be
thwarted from ‘doing justice’, which is invariably interpreted
as a desire to nail Mr Zardari in the cases against him.
Zafar Hilaly
It
took three months to shape the battlefield in South Waziristan
before the army moved against the TTP. It will take longer for
Mr Zardari's opponents to shape the political battlefield
before operations to remove him commence. Skirmishing has been
under way for some time.
Much of the press has been won over and this is evident by the
manner in which papers with the largest circulation are baying
for his blood. The majority of TV anchors too are ill disposed
towards him, judging by the amount of bile they exude at the
mere mention of his name.
The judiciary too has said that it will not be thwarted from
'doing justice', which is invariably interpreted as a desire
to nail Mr Zardari in the cases against him.
His coalition partners, fearing taint by association, have
been quick to publicly distance themselves from him at the
first sign of trouble whatever they may be saying to him, and
his emissaries, in private.
As for the military's contrived disinterest in politics and
the fate of Mr Zardari, it fools no one. We know that they
have the deepest interest in who leads Pakistan. Their focus
has, alas, always been on the person rather than the process
and how amenable he is to their demands and whether he shares,
in the main, their worldview of the direction in which the
nation is headed.
As for the hapless public, they are forever on the qui vive
for someone who will deliver them from the current perdition
that seems their fate. Sensing that Mr Zardari is not the
knight in shining armour that they pray for, he having failed
to persuade them that he is, they are psychologically ready
for change.
And finally the Americans, who are watching aghast at the
government's flaying efforts to get its act together, are now
at the point that they privately concede that while the next
man may do no better, he can hardly do any worse.
In a sense, therefore, just about everything is ready for the
big push and every day brings fresh evidence of the looming
battle. The decision of Nawaz Sharif not to contest the
Rawalpindi election is put down to his belief that as another
election is round the corner, why bother being part of the
current defunct parliament. The MQM's antics are meant to
clear the decks of obstacles to what will surely be, unless
the election commission summons up the courage to intervene,
its inevitable 'landslide' victory whenever elections are held
in their urban fiefdoms in Sindh. Lyari, the sole PPP
stronghold in Karachi, now appears like the beleaguered Alamo
ripe for the taking.
The Sindh ANP, torn between protecting Pathans in Karachi and
losing pelf and the little power that it enjoys as a member of
the increasingly ramshackle coalition that pretends to govern
Pakistan, is at its wits' end. It knows what it should do but
cannot bring itself to do it.
News that NAB has moved to freeze presidential assets in Sindh
hardly stirred any interest. It is common knowledge that the
judges have the bit between their teeth and there is no
stopping them.
Whether all that is happening is part of a grand design or
merely coincidental is difficult to say but the unmistakeable
feeling that the decisive battle is about to begin is all
around us.
Mr Zardari, a veritable political Houdini, must be fashioning
his strategy. What can he do? His minions have loudly
proclaimed their intention of galvanising Sindh, even if it
comes to threatening the federation, if his party is hounded
out of office. But however much Mr Zulfiqar Mirza may rant and
scream at the antics of the MQM, the choice the PPP faces is
stark. Put up with them or lose power in Islamabad; and that
is a prospect that Mr Zardari is not prepared to countenance.
He intends instead to cave in to the MQM at the cost of
further depleting his popularity, if that is possible.
Mr Zardari could also, as he seems to be doing, use
intermediaries to mend fences with the army, the judiciary and
the press. But he must know that if you live among wolves it
is no use acting like sheep; you must act like a fox. But
then, as we know too well, however cunning the fox may be it
is usually run to the ground. In fact, if one looks around and
sees the amount of fox pelts in some countries, one wonders
whether the fox really deserves its reputation for cunning.
No, acting like a fox will not help Mr Zardari.
What will help is for him to act as a statesman but more so as
a populist politician, which he in fact is. These traits may
appear mutually exclusive but they need not be. There are
several recent examples in the third world of leaders who were
able to combine them effectively.
Mr Zardari needs to pitch his appeal to the people above the
heads of his conniving opponents and the establishment, which
while it has repeatedly shown cannot be out foxed, can be
surprised and is at a loss to know how to react when it comes
to tackling a leader who promises to break the mould in which
politics has been cast.
Mr Zardari will discover that the defiance of established
authority, social and political, religious and secular, is
what Pakistanis today are primed to do if only they had a
leader to guide them. And if he is prepared to assume that
role Mr Zardari will further discover that the populace will
warm to him. Hence, perhaps his approach should be somewhat
along these lines as he addresses gatherings: "The time has
come. There is a terrific thunder cloud advancing upon us, a
mighty storm is coming to freshen us up. It is going to blow
away all this hopelessness, joblessness, idleness and the
indifference to your fate that exists today."
After all, what does Mr Zardari have to lose by becoming a
populist? Why not be one? We know what happens to people who
stay in the middle of the road. They get run over.
The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan. He can be
reached at charles123it@hotmail.com
An unwinnable
war
The American withdrawal, when it does take place, should
not be viewed as the result of a negotiated settlement. It
should be seen as retreat from a war that was found to be
unwinnable.
Anwar Syed
The
Taliban are fundamentalist, militant Muslims who are
persuaded that they alone are the true believers and all
others who claim to be Muslim are in fact hypocrites who
deserve to be thrown out of the pale of Islam or, better
still, eliminated. They also want to drive the western
powers and their 'pernicious' influences out of the Muslim
world.
No wonder then that 'nominal' Muslims and western people
consider the Taliban a dangerous lot to be subdued, chased
out of their present locations and, if necessary, killed.
Enormous amounts of money, weapons and manpower have been
deployed in recent years to eradicate them, but this
enterprise has not so far been successful. The Taliban
have occasionally suffered reverses and dispersed, but
they have subsequently reassembled and reorganised
themselves as a force capable of disrupting the existing
order of things.
More than 100,000 American troops were stationed in
Afghanistan to keep the Taliban from taking Kabul and
other large towns. President Obama has recently decided to
send another 30,000 to supplement the existing force
level. The American mission in Afghanistan is made
particularly difficult by the fact that President Hamid
Karzai's government is generally seen as corrupt,
ineffective and a product of rigged elections. It is to be
noted also that America's military and political presence
in Afghanistan is costing the country something like a
billion dollars a month.
President Obama has decided to withdraw American forces
from Afghanistan. The withdrawal is to begin next year.
The cost of continued engagement is one reason for this
decision. But the president may also have figured that
there is nothing in or about Afghanistan that involves
America's vital interests. It is said in certain quarters
that Afghanistan's strategic location will enable anyone
stationed there to keep an eye on the Central Asian
states, and that any oil pipeline coming out of one of
these states and going east has to pass through
Afghanistan at least part of the way. This is not good
reasoning.
The US government does not need these facilities. Its
satellites, revolving around the earth, take pictures of
every inch of the ground below. Its people do not have to
sit in Afghanistan to know of the happenings in Central
Asia. American oil companies can negotiate transit fees
that may have to be paid to the government in Kabul for
the pipeline's passage through Afghanistan. It should be
noted also that Afghanistan is a small and poor country
with little of known resources that outsiders may covet.
It follows that there is no good reason for America to
keep its forces in Afghanistan. What is likely to happen
when they leave? Critics of American policy say that if
the forces withdraw and leave the country to rival
factions, a ruinous civil war will follow with the Taliban
re-emerging as a potent force and capturing power to
become rulers of Afghanistan once again.
The American withdrawal, when it does take place, should
not be viewed as the result of a negotiated settlement. It
should be seen as retreat from a war that was found to be
unwinnable.
As a Taliban regime in Kabul settles down to governing, it
will find that it cannot operate in isolation from the
rest of the world, and that it has to do business with
other governments, which it cannot on its terms. It will
have to bend to the rules and usages of international
politics. In other words, it will mature and mellow as
most revolutionary movements do if they are to survive the
opposition they have generated. The rest of the world,
including America, will also be prepared in time to do
business with a Taliban government in Kabul.
Let us now come to the problem that Pakistan faces with
the Taliban within its own territory, particularly its
tribal regions. Not only do these militants think that
they alone are the true Muslims, they believe that they
are also entitled to enforce their ways on others and kill
them if they don't submit.
Their way includes strict segregation of men and women
and, for the most part, women's confinement to their
homes. If they must go out, they should be fully covered
and accompanied by a close male relative. They may not
work in places where men are present. The Taliban are
opposed to modern, western type of education and they have
closed, even burnt down, schools. The Taliban are
exclusively concerned with establishing their writ through
religious dogma, and they have no interest in the good
health or even survival of Pakistan as a state. They are
convinced also that if their version of Islam is to be
implemented, they must be the rulers.
They want the state and government of Pakistan to step out
of their way, and since they won't yield, the Taliban are
at war with them. The government of Pakistan, on its part,
also regards its confrontation with the Taliban as a war.
The Pakistan Army has been fighting them for some time. We
may be sure that this is going to be a long haul, for the
Taliban are tough fighters, well supplied with funds, and
well equipped with modern weapons which they are trained
to use.
The writer, professor emeritus at the University of
Massachusetts, is a visiting professor at the Lahore
School of Economics.
anwars@lahoreschool.edu.pk
Ban this ban!
From
France to Sweden, rightwing elements are up in arms
against these roughly 2,000 burqas, supposedly for the
rescue of European Enlightenment.
Farooq
Sulehria
Absurdities
come in many varieties. The latest example is the French
ban on burqa. Worse, the French action is proving
contagious.
In Denmark, Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, who heads
a right-wing government, has hinted at a ban on burqa,
even though no woman in Denmark wears it. The notorious
rightwing Jyllands Posten newspaper had to retract a story
that three or four women wear it in Denmark. Prime
Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden is being quizzed by
the press corps on the subject of burqa.
But the respective countries' media have found merely 100
women in Sweden and 1,900 in France who wear burqa. A
sizable minority among burqa-clad women consists of
European converts. From France to Sweden, rightwing
elements are up in arms against these roughly 2,000 burqas,
supposedly for the rescue of European Enlightenment.
However, only three decades ago, rightwing governments in
France encouraged Muslim immigrants to grow beards and
wear burqas. Islamised immigrants were considered a safe
bet against unionised immigrants.
The ultimate victim of the burqa ban is enlightenment
itself, even though the effort to undermine enlightenment
is sophisticated, with Europe's culture being invoked. How
absurd! Enlightenment does not need protection by
governments headed by rightwing politicians like Nicolas
Sarkozy. If Pakistan were to go Taliban tomorrow and the
Taliban imposed burqa on Pakistani women, they would
justify their action by invoking the French ban on burqa.
No one banned burqa in Pakistan, but no woman in my family
wears it anymore, although my mother used to.
By the way, long before Sarkozy's France got alarmed at
burqa, the founding fathers of Muslim countries like
Turkey and Tunis, Mustafa Kemal Atarurk and Habib
Bourguiba, had banned headscarves - for entirely different
reasons though. In both these countries now, many young
women wear headscarves, as a symbol of defiance. Last year
in Istanbul, I saw a girl in a Che-shirt, with her head
covered by a headscarf. Ironically, Islamists have thrice
won general elections in Atarurk's Turkey. The government
of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is Islamist. Bans
never work.
The burqa ban is a discriminatory measure directed not
merely against French Muslims but ultimately against the
democratic rights of the entire working class of France.
Instead of leading to integration, the ban on burqa will
contribute to anti-immigrant and communalist sentiments,
thus fuelling divisions among French citizens. The Nazis
targeted Jews before settling scores with broad layers of
the working masses.
The ban negates the basic rights of religious freedom and
a citizen's control over his or her own body. It grants
the French state new powers to intervene in matters of
individual choice on what dress to wear. In essence, it is
false to equate the progressive democratic principle of
secularism (separation of church and state) with a
government edict that abridges individuals' right to dress
the way they want.
In a grotesque way, the French ban is France's "Talibanisation."
Many proponents of the ban claim that it is directed
against the oppression of women, of which the burqa is a
symbol. This argument is an example of sophistry. It is
impossible to attribute a democratic and liberating
character to a law that stigmatises an entire group of
people, based on their dress choice.
The inevitable result of this discriminatory law will be
to encourage the development of religious separatism and
communalist thinking among Muslim immigrants who feel,
justifiably, that they are being singled out for
persecution. Religious prejudices can be fought back
through the political development and education of the
masses in the struggle for democratic rights, not through
state decrees imposed from above, by governments that
serve the interests of the elite.
Email: mfsulehria@hotmail.com
|
|