Posts Tagged ‘Musharaff’
If Pakistan now poses a greater threat to the world than Afghanistan, the US is responsible for setting it on its violent pat
This ominous statement tracks a series of alarming developments: the surreal video of twelve gunmen brazenly attacking the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore’s broad daylight; Pakistan’s capitulation to the Taliban on implementing sharia law in the Swat Valley; several days of riots after the Supreme Court banned popular opposition leader Nawaz Sharif and his brother from holding office; evidence directly linking Pakistani terrorist groups to November’s Mumbai tragedy; a significant increase in suicide bombings within Pakistan; and, of course, the rapid Talibanisation of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) – a Grand Central Station for multicultural extremists seeking training, support and safe haven. Read the rest of this entry »
FATIMA BHUTTO, A Portrait by Rusty Zimmerman (www.rustyzimmerman.com/)
Wearing Bhutto as a last name in Pakistan is analogous to carrying a flamboyant, rare, elitist Prada bag: an accessory that assures you will never be common nor anonymous. The Bhutto merchandise captivates the political landscape as a dynamic, privileged, legendary and plagued real estate that encapsulates all that is wildly schizophrenic, volatile but ultimately endearing about Pakistan. It’s precisely this mythology borne from a feudal dynasty that burdens Fatima Bhutto, the charismatic and outspoken niece of recently assassinated Benazir Bhutto, and daughter of Murtaza Bhutto, himself assassinated in 1996.
The twenty five year old published poet, writer, and columnist for The News in Pakistan loathes “birth right politics” and laments Pakistan’s obsession with “the cult of personality.” Regardless, that Bhutto brand name, for better or worse, places the spotlight squarely on this young “Bhutto,” who is now coming into her own as both a vocal social activist and highly coveted, Pakistani bachelorette tabloid sensation. Instead of abusing the limelight for pretentious self adulation, Fatima Bhutto has found a forum to publicly blast Musharaff’s dictatorial government, Asif Ali Zardari’s corruption, Benazir Bhutto’s self serving machinations, and the Army’s hegemonic apparatuses.
I recently conducted a lengthy and informative interview with Pakistan’s “new” daughter of destiny and pleasantly discovered that she, despite her regal and privileged upbringing, was not like the narcissistic, self-absorbed Pakistani Clifton elitists I’ve met and come to abhor over the years. Instead, I talked to an extremely opinionated, well informed, sarcastic, passionate, garrulous yet articulate young woman about the recent Pakistani elections, Asif Ali Zardari’s new government, the real Benazir Bhutto, the role of Bhutto and Zardari in her father’s assassination, the disastrous results of American foreign policy, the future of Musharaff, and life living under the “Bhutto” spotlight.
ALI: There are many who have partisan views on the Bhutto family dynasty. Some see you as “the real Bhutto” as opposed to Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, son of Asif Zardari and the late Benazir Bhutto. Why would you think you warrant the “authentic label” – a political label, I might add, you seem to wholeheartedly reject at the current moment.
BHUTTO: To me it sounds like two different things. First, there’s a question of simple genetics I think. There’s a question of some kind of political birthright. But I think both propositions are frivolous. The first question is: who is actually a Bhutto child by virtue of their parents? I think that is a pretty straightforward answer; one that shouldn’t have other implications but does now in this exciting frenzy of “dynasty” that we live in, right?
The other is which child is more qualified to rule, which is equally frivolous. Because “name” is determining the qualification in this place. It’s not a resume, it’s not any work experience, it’s just who has the closer genetics to the [gene] pool and therefore who is more qualified. It’s an example of how names and personalities rather than principles and platforms have taken over politics in South Asia and Pakistan.
ALI: Many claim the dynasty has a curse and a privilege, which can be likened to what we have here in America with the Kennedys. Do you think this cycle will repeat itself in the 21st century: a cyclical pattern of tragedy and privilege? Is there any way to break from this dynastic “curse”, or is this just an overreaching assumption?
BHUTTO: I think it’s a bit fantastical actually. When we rely on things like curses and blessings to explain things for us, we lose sight of the real picture. We lose sight of the wider truths and how it is that people live in the countries they live in and the factors that decide the things like violence in these countries. I think it’s all very romanticized to say there is a curse and that’s why they will be part of a cyclical violence for a family like the Kennedys, the Ghandis and so on.
The answer is probably less exciting or less mythical. That’s something people don’t like to look at. It’s amazing the politics of distraction that are practiced, not just in South Asia, but also in the media at large. Where you can take a family and build a myth around it that is exciting and sad and romantic without any mention of actual politics or actual conditions in the country they live in. It’s purely distraction. I think they keep perpetuating this myth of curses and blessings – it’s all very frivolous.
ALI: Throughout the history of Pakistan it seems either the military or feudal dynasties control the power. From the ground up, there seems to be a system in place that always hijacks the democratic process in their favor. How can Pakistan tangibly and realistically free itself of this? Can it at all?
BHUTTO: It certainly can. The question is will it? One question that is central to both is the issue of accountability and certainly the issue of merit. When you look at the state of Pakistani politicians today – you are right – it’s either a taking over by the army who believe they are the only ones who care for Pakistan and they are the only force that can set Pakistan down the right path. Then you’ve got this sort of feudal dynasty that believes they are entitled to rule and that they deserve power. Neither one of these groups is going to give up power or authority. Now we see a third cycling of politicians.
Musharraf came into power because people were fed up with Nawaz [Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s once exiled former Prime Minister] and [Benazir] Bhutto. Then, Nawaz and Benazir came back to Pakistan, because people were fed up with Musharaff. And when people are finished with Asif Zardari [Benazir’s husband and her party’s current figurehead] and Nawaz, they will go back to Musharaff.
Parties have molded politics in Pakistan into one of personality. They have completely lowered the political discourse and political understanding in this country. It doesn’t have to be about issues anymore, it’s about people. It’s about who looks better on a sticker. I mean it sounds funny, but in a sense it’s true. They are able to do this because in Pakistan we have no discourse that pushes things like principles or platforms or merits. One should be qualified to rule because of their experience, their platforms, their party’s manifesto, because of the internal democratic system. But of course that’s not the question, it’s whom you are related to and how closely you are related to them.
The other factor is also accountability with things like the NRO, which is really an odious piece of legislation called the National Reconciliation Ordinance, which is a bill signed unilaterally into power by Musharaff when he was the General and not the President. It effectively wipes out 20 years of corruption for politicians, bankers and bureaucrats. And it makes it virtually impossible to file future charges against a sitting parliamentarian. It effectively puts those in power above the law. And today the NRO is being used not to excuse just financial crimes, but also extortion, murder, smuggling cases, drug cases, I mean this is certainly the case of Asif Zardari. There’s no accountability, there’s no way of saying these feudal dynasties have stolen from the country and they have not given it back to the country, and the army has increased violence and changed our way of life. We would like to hold them accountable to their rule, and therefore remove them from office. Without that system, we can’t remove them.
ALI: Let’s discuss the current election and some political parties. You have actually talked about the rigging of Pakistan’s February elections, and even suggested the PPP [Benazir’s party, the Pakistan People’s Party] had a hand in rigging them. However, many said this election represented the will of the Pakistani people. Were these truly free elections we witnessed?
BHUTTO: This election was nothing more than state theatre. It was a complete farce in many ways. First of all, it was the third time the election date was changed. It was supposed to be in December, but then Emergency was declared. Then we were supposed to have it January 8th, and then it was postponed to February 18th. Now for each of these periods, the campaigning time was extremely limited – 30 to 45 days given – and if you look at the original Constitution, you need at least 60 but at least preferably 90 days for canvassing. For those who don’t know, this is an enormous country. We have very distinct provinces, and in order to canvass on that scale you need time. So, that’s the first way the elections were clearly not going to be free or fair.
Secondly, there was no drive for registration in Pakistan. If you look at most rural areas in many of these provinces, women don’t have ID cards. Not just women, but you also have the peasants working the land, your construction workers that come from the Frontier, village people who are in a way bonded labor; people who have no sort of social security or are legally tracked in any way. Women especially just don’t have access.
So, you have an election from the start that is not going to be representative of the people. You’re going to have only a small percentage of the people that can vote. Then, there’s Election Day. Musharaff’s government enabled rigging. I think that’s very important to state. They released, for example, a voter list by the government at one stage. Several weeks later, polling lists were released. Now, let’s say you have a voting list of 60,000 people and a polling list of maybe 300 polling stations; people have no idea where they are registered. So, they may go to their closest polling station where they voted at last elections, wait in line, and then be told, “No, I’m sorry you’re not registered here.” “So, where am I registered?” “Sorry, we don’t have that information.” There’s a complete disconnect and there’s no transparency between these two lists.
The other way is the election commission released booklets and did ads in the media putting out the rules of elections. What you need in an election to vote legally is that you need to appear in person, and you need a valid identity card with your name and card number on it. However, the voter lists that were given to the voting stations by the election commission and the government, they have a name and a birth date but nothing in between. They don’t have an ID card number or address. So, you can appear at a polling station and say, “Hi I’m Afzal Khan and I’d like to vote,” and there’s nothing to distinguish you from 400 other Afzal Khans in your neighborhood.
So, that name doesn’t get checked off, and people can come and vote on the same name over and over again. The Musharaff government certainly enabled rigging, but what’s important to know about rigging especially in a country like Pakistan is that people have this image that the government is sort of a miscreant in a black cloak who comes in to a station, sticks in a separate box, hides it in under his cloak, and somehow rigging happens. But how it really happens is through the local parties on the ground, who have polling agents at the scene and who are technically there to ensure rigging doesn’t happen, but of course that’s not the case.
Parties like PPP, PML-N rig in a number of ways, the first is through intimidation. These are small communities, the polling agent knows your name, knows where you live, and if you don’t vote the right way, you will be noticed. There’s also ballot stuffing, which we saw quite openly. You also have a presiding officer at the polling station who are usually school teachers, and these are government appointed positions who owe their livelihood and job to the government so they are not neutral in any way.
You also have fake ID’s being used. We saw women coming in with several ID’s. They come in wearing the burqahs and you have a 19 year old wearing a burqah who has an ID card saying she was born in 1938. And you are not permitted to ask a lady wearing a burqah to lift her burqah, she doesn’t have to show her face when she votes, and that of course leads to rigging.
ALI: CNN recently stated that Asif Ali Zardari is the most powerful man in Pakistan. The Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, was sworn in last week, and many people say he is a handpicked Desi [South Asian] uncle who is merely the proxy of Zardari. And, as you know, Zardari’s former nickname is “Mr. 10%” due to the illegal commissions he got off contracts. Has he been reformed 100%?
BHUTTO: I don’t think Zardari has been reformed an iota. This reform of Zardari has been through the NRO, a completely unconstitutional and illegal piece of legislation. What they have done is stricken from the record 2.5 to 3 billion dollars worth of corruption from Zardari’s name. And they said, “Sorry, nope, just kidding, he didn’t do it”. But in a city like Karachi most of the citizens don’t have access to electricity. In the summer, the running water comes maybe two or three hours a day. A city that effectively looks like a refugee camp. That’s evidence of that corruption, that evidence you see every day doesn’t erase itself with the NRO. They’ve removed some extortion and drug cases from Zardari’s record as well.
He had 4 murder cases pending against him, and one of them was just removed involving the murder of a High Court Justice and his young son. Just because his name is now suddenly stricken from the record, doesn’t change that there’s a family who remembered him. I don’t think he’s been reformed in any way except to promote this idea of reconciliation, healing and democracy at work in Pakistan. Which of course is for the benefit for people who know nothing about Pakistan.
If you see Gilani the Prime Minister, what has not been mentioned in the Washington Post pieces about his exciting and democratic election, is that he not only served under the parliament of the dictator Zia al Haq [Pakistan’s military dictator from 1977 to 1988 until his assassination], but he also served under the Majlis of Shura council of Zia al Haq, an Islamic council or parliament that Zia had created which he filled with his most trusted and closest advisors. A former crony if you will, or certainly a political worker of Zia al Haq, now stands in Parliament as a Prime Minister of the PPP, whose founder [Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Benazir’s father] was killed by Zia. These are all fiefs. Historical amnesia in Pakistan doesn’t even have to extend that far, it just goes back 20 years. That’s how far you have to go to check Gilani’s political history.
Certainly he’s been placed there because he’s a “yes man”, he has no ideological attachment to the People’s Party, certainly the party that was founded by Zulfiqar Bhutto. However, I’m sure he worked just fine with Benazir and Zardari’s people. But this has become a charade concerning Zardari’s cases. What the NRO does is that those cases with Zardari no longer have to happen under the table – now they can happen over the table.
ALI: You’ve said publicly that you hold Benazir Bhutto “morally responsible” for the assassination of your father [Murtaza Bhutto shot outside his house in Karachi, Pakistan in a police ambush in 1996.] We now know the police had a direct role in the murder, including blocking traffic and delaying the ambulances as well dragging the investigation. Do you specifically blame your aunt and Asif Zardari for your father’s assassination? Pointing fingers at your aunt and Zardari is a bold claim no?
BHUTTO: As you said we know for a fact that the police pulled the trigger. Some very high level police officers were at the scene of the murder – they placed themselves there. Who authorized the police to stage a private killing of an elected member of the Assembly and coincidentally the Prime Minister’s brother? I always said Bhutto bears moral responsibility for my father’s murder because if you look at her last government in the mid 90’s it presided over thousands of deaths in Karachi. Bhutto used the police force to attack her critics and opponents.
The police were given orders by the Prime Minister’s office to clean up Karachi. They went after the ethnic Muhajir community, a community that came from India [after 1947’s partition], and is primarily Urdu speaking and the MQM party, which is the party that represents them. They were attacked in “Operation Clean Up”, which was as genocidal as it sounds. I mean the police were empowered by the Prime Minister’s office to setup torture cells and assassination squads. It was as simple as the police stop you, they ask for your ID card, and if you don’t have a Sindhi name, if you have a Muhajir name then you’re shot on spot. There were thousands of these daily murders. The MQM were targeted primarily because they opposed Bhutto and primarily because they were a sticking point in the province of Sindh where she got most of her votes and power from. My father was a very vocal critic of the corruption by Benazir and Asif and these extra judicial killings. And he was one man out of thousands that was killed by her government.
So, absolutely she created an environment of organized and sanctioned violence against political figures. None of these cases were solved. None of these cases were seriously looked into. The police were allowed to attack with immunity and were covered by the law. Secondly, I pointed the finger at Benazir because her role in the cover-up was substantial. While we don’t know if she signed the death warrant her self, while we know she wasn’t there to pull the trigger, we also know certain things. After the murder my family wasn’t allowed to file a first information report [F.I.R.], which is a police report that is every Pakistani’s right by law. Our family was denied the right to file an F.I.R. We had to go the high court of Sindh to have our legal rights awarded to us.
Secondly Bhutto’s government arrested the witnesses and the survivors to the assassination but not the police, they were not arrested, they were all internally cleared in a review, and they were honorably reinstated to their job, and they were promoted. One member of the police force who at the time headed the intelligence bureau that directly reported to the Prime Minister’s office, after the murder he was asked by Benazir to join the Central Committee of her Party. That sounds like a reward really. It doesn’t sound like a punishment. It was a very honored position to be given.
Third, the Benazir government didn’t allow us to push forward with a criminal case. They elected to have a tribunal which was to have no legal authority to pass a sentence. It was essentially a stalling mechanism. However the judges chosen were very well respected members of the community. The tribunal concluded three very important things, but unfortunately they were unable to act on these conclusions.
First, it was an assassination. Forensically, they concluded only the police fired ammunition; it wasn’t a shoot out. Second, they concluded that the police used an excessive amount of force, that they stopped traffic, they didn’t take the injured men to hospitals, and they dropped them off at clinics but not to emergency wards. And third, they concluded the assassination couldn’t have happened without approval from the highest level of the government. At the time what was higher than Benazir’s post as Prime Minister?
ALI: Many say that the bad blood between your late father and Asif Zardari points the blame at the latter. Do you think that’s pure speculation or accurate?
BHUTTO: We have to take into account my father was very vocal about Asif’s role in Benazir’s government. He was outspoken about his corruption and about the manner in which he and his friends essentially hijacked the government. He was given positions like the Minister of Investment, which is almost ridiculous to place in the hands of a man who has corruption cases leveled against him. Asif Zardari certainly with his wife took the party in a direction that rendered it completely unfamiliar in its original form. A party that was founded on the ideals of social justice, land reform, provincial empowerment, and economic empowerment became under Benazir and Asif’s control the party of feudal landlords. It became a party of the industrial class, these oligarchs that control industry in Pakistan, and it no longer is a party for the disposed and disenfranchised. It’s become a club, a club for the rich and famous and criminally inept. My father was very critical about this, of course he represented a threat politically to Benazir. He spoke truth to the power in that case, and it was certainly very threatening.
The other thing to keep in mind is that this is not the only murder case leveled against Asif Zardari. There’s the case of the high court judge as I mentioned. There was a case of the steel mill chairman as well. Asif was a man at the time in power who was not used to hearing no, he was used to getting what he wanted. He received “10%” during Benazir’s first government and he became Mr. 50% during the second. Nothing ran in Pakistan without Asif’s approval, and I don’t imagine that this would have changed very much now. Again we see him at the helm of power pulling the string of the Prime Minister and Parliament.
ALI: If you’ve been reading the Western media’s coverage of Pakistan, you’ll know your late aunt, Benazir Bhutto, was heralded as the “beacon of democracy.” Some others state she was merely a shameless self-promoter. What was the reality, and why did the United States want so much to project her as this beacon of democracy?
BHUTTO: When people do their bidding for the U.S., they become beacons of democracy. The U.S also, I believe, thought Pinochet of Chile was a beacon of democracy at one time; they heralded Taliban as freedom fighters in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson. Let’s not forget they supported Saddam Hussein until he became inconvenient then they toppled him. The Shah Of Iran was also a great friend of America. So I think it’s perfectly obvious why America would choose to support Benazir: she was willing to do their bidding for them. Here was a politician who was certainly corrupt if not financially then certainly ethically, and who had lost, through the years, the necessary ground support to bring her to power any more. That’s why she needed backers like those in The White House.
Before she came back to Pakistan, she gave a number of very controversial statements. She said that once re-elected Prime Minister for the third time, which she assumed – in the way feudal dynasts do – was a given, that she would open up Pakistan’s borders for U.S. troops to stage operations in their War on Terror. Now that statement is not pro American, that statement is anti Pakistani. But those were the lengths she was willing to go to please those pulling the strings. It was Condi Rice who basically pushed Musharaff’s arm to deal with Benazir and said, “Look, you need a pretty face in the government, we can’t keep supporting open dictators. We can support you and give you millions of dollars of aid provided you look sort of like a democracy. It’s not the ‘70’s anymore.”
Purely looking at Benazir’s record, Wajahat, we have to conclude she was not a beacon of democracy. In her first government, she came into power by dealing with the military, through dealing with Zia’s military. She would’ve been his Prime Minister, and she was very fortunate that he was killed before that. It’s worthwhile mentioning General Zia assassinated Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, her father, and abrogated the 1973 constitution. When Benazir won the 1988 elections the army said to her, “Look we will invite you to be Prime Minister, but we will choose your cabinet for you and your foreign minister for you. And, you have to continue on with the IMF and World Bank loan agreements that we have taken on, and they have to be carried forward without any argument.” And she agreed and compromised with the army in ’88.
If we look at her first government which lasted two years, Benazir’s government failed to pass any major legislation – and by any major legislation I mean any legislation. Instead, you’ve got a woman Prime Minister popularly elected who did not remove the Hudood Ordinance, which is the most violent piece of legislation against women and minorities in Pakistan. It is a part of Zia’s legacy. It says if a woman commits adultery or engages in sexual relations before marriage she can be stoned to death. It’s a completely draconian law. The Bhutto government didn’t even attempt to remove the Hudood.
She was ousted in 1990 on large-scale corruption charges. She comes back to government in ’93, which is now known for continued corruption on a major level. We’re talking billions. Two to three billon dollars worth of corruption cases about money stolen from Pakistan’s Treasury. They were also known for major flagrant human rights violations, for the extra judicial killings targeted against the ethnic Muhajirs and political dissidents. To top it off, before falling out of power, she recognizes and provided support for the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Her interior minister used to call the Taliban “my boys.” And Benazir has basically admitted in interviews “Look we made a mistake with Afghanistan. Whoops, I didn’t know. Please forgive me.”
This is her record. During her last government, six Sindhi papers were shut down because they were critical. There was no freedom of press, no freedom of political difference. Her record is not just violence, but also distinctly undemocratic. So, we come out of that and ask, “What did she do afterwards?” She leaves the country and she comes back and makes a deal with a dictator.
She makes a deal with Musharaff and asks for three things: First, the NRO and for [the pardon of] her corruption cases and her friends, which distinctively cover her and not other figures, from the start of her power till the end, from 1986 till now. She asks for the NRO. Secondly, she asks that the Constitution be changed so that the Prime Minister can have more than two terms. Now, most functioning democracies have limits on the powers for the Prime Minister and President. Benazir was asking this be removed so she could return to power for the third time, a personal request. And the third request was to remove Article 58-2b, which allowed the President to depose his Prime Minister without the sanction of Parliament. By removing the Article, it doesn’t empower the people, the democratic institution, the parliament; it simply shifts power from the President to the Prime Minister. Again, that’s a deeply personal sort of request.
For Benazir coming back for a third shot at power, it’s remarkable she didn’t ask for the 1973 Constitution to be restored, or she didn’t say drop the Hudood, or she didn’t ask for the thousands of people that have disappeared since Musharaff came into office. The only legislation she asked for was concerning her own person. Her record is one that is deeply flawed, deeply, deeply flawed. It’s no more democratic than the Shah of Iran or General Pinochet.
But, however, I think it’s this continued sort of racism in the West and this need for expediency to push Benazir forward. Here is this woman that speaks beautiful English and she went to the best schools the West could offer. And she is compliant, and she was a pretty face for this idea of a democracy, this sort of transposed democracy they were planning to put up in Pakistan. I don’t think the US government has dealt with Pakistan any differently than they do with other similar countries they intervene in. Certainly the media, and this is important to note, was remarkably irresponsible in their covering Benazir before she was coming back to Pakistan.
There were these fawning articles written about what a horrible life she had, how attractive she was, how she went to Oxford, who her friends in Washington and London were. It didn’t say much about her record, or her time in government. Ultimately, that’s what she is accountable to – her record.
ALI: Western media portrays Pakistan as a hotbed of “rage boys” – yet fundamentalist parties only win a minority of seats. Nonetheless, we see an explosion of suicide bombings and terrorist attacks this past year. This makes it hard for U.S. and the world to hear the age-old tale “Hey, we Pakistanis are peaceful.” If you could control the Western media’s depiction for one day – what would you show as the modern day reality of Pakistan?
BHUTTO: Wow. Well, that would be a very heavy day. I think when we talk about things like Islamic radicalism or Islamic extremism in Pakistan, the one thing Western media is really good at is showing the really scary side: men with beards burning things and bombing things. They de-contextualise them. They leave them completely floating in this space of terror and violence. One thing I’ve never seen in the media explanation as to why Islamic fundamentalists have become powerful in Pakistan is the following. In most of this country, you see no evidence of the government in rural areas. They are completely an invisible force, either reluctant or unwilling to provide the most basic needs for people in this country. So what happens in these places, Islamic organizations will come in and set up madrassas. So if there’s no other option for a family to have their child educated, how do you convince a family not to send their child to a religious school, a madrassa? You can’t. You don’t. You have no right to. Of course not all madrassas are bad, and we have to distinguish between good and bad madrassas In the Western media, madrassa is followed by jihad or training camp, and that’s certainly not the case.
After the 2005 earthquakes, which was incredibly devastating with tremendous destruction, what you saw when you went to these areas hit by the earthquake, you saw aid coming from foreign countries, foreign flags flying, and you saw the Jamaat and Islamic parties and organizations building tents and rehabilitations centers. You didn’t see anything from the Pakistan government. I would put that in the newspaper for the day. I think also the thing that happens in the Western media is that they have set the bar incredibly low for countries like Pakistan. That speaks to this sort of – I don’t know what the word is - one could call it Orientalism, neo-colonialism or imperialism – let’s just call it imperialism. Part of imperial thinking is to denigrate the people you are lording over, and say these are very simple people and so we must come and help them. The Western media does this constantly with Pakistan, for example, after the elections, they said, “Oh, only 20 people were killed that’s very good for Pakistan!” No, that’s not good or okay for Pakistan! 20 people or 200 people, it doesn’t matter, this is still 20 people, it’s still violence on Election Day.
You also had Joe Biden and John Kerry come in and say, “Oh, for Pakistan this was incredibly free and fair elections.” No! For no country was this free and fair elections, but the bar has been placed so low in the Western media. When there’s two suicide bombings instead of five, the media says, “Whoa! Things are booming in Pakistan.”
There are so many things the Western media leaves out, sorry for going on like this. The Western media paints this picture of economic progress in Pakistan, you know 10 billion dollars of aid, this country is moving forward, they are allies on the War on Terror, they are receiving foreign investments and so forth.
The idea that The New York Times would say these things that Pakistan is booming under Musharaff – everything is wonderful and everything is great. But what they don’t print is that the growth they speak of is this very small pool. Like 20 families that have always done well in Pakistan and have continued to do well. If you look at the majority of the population, it’s become too expensive to eat in this country in parts of Punjab and Sindh. The price of bread, which is a staple in the Pakistani diet, went from 2 rupees to 18 rupees. The price of flour, wheat is just enormously high in this country.
ALI: War on terror has produced kidnappings, battery and even outright attacks on Pakistani people by Pakistan’s army in its hunt for Bin Laden. A lot of times we see disappearances of activists and professors in the Balochistan province. Describe this scene to us and explain if this, at all, is linked to the blowback we see via suicide bombs in Pakistan?
BHUTTO: It started off in the same way that you see with American military involvement in a lot of countries under the guise of fighting terror or protecting interests, they’d come in, say so and so has terror links, and they’d take them to Guantanamo. However, the Pakistani government, once the American government stopped shipping people to Guantanamo with enthusiasm, decided this was a very convenient way to deal with their problems. In Balochistan Province you have anywhere between five to eight thousand people disappeared – that’s an incredibly high number. As you said they are activists, professors, political workers, poets, they are picked up and taken and for no reason. Their families don’t know where they are; we don’t discuss this in the media.
You know Pakistan doesn’t have a history of suicide bombing, but certainly does have a violent political history, but we never had suicide bombings. But this recent slate of suicide attacks against the state, but also politicians, in crowded places, in parks and outside eateries – several things here need to be mentioned. If you look at the suicide operations that happened in Sri Lanka or Palestine or Lebanon, you always have a testimony or evidence by the suicide bomber before he kills himself. You know, “I am so and so and I am killing myself for this reason.” And then afterwards you have family members who come and explain. In Pakistan, there is a bomb blast, many people die, we are told there was suicide bomber but he is now dead. Who is this suicide bomber? We never get the names of the suicide bomber, we never get a testimony or explanation, and we rarely get a picture. We never hear the background to this man, who he was, what his family thinks, does his family think he was guilty of suicide bombing or not?
The government then conveniently says look we promise we will provide some justice for people who lost their lives in these attacks and justice will be provided and the man who did it is killed and oh well. I mean the troubling part is how easily suicide bombings are used and how readily they are accepted; there is no questioning anymore. Everything is done now through the machinery of suicide bombing, and if we assume they are genuine attacks that are not manipulated in any way, they are incredibly aggressive, and they have grown more aggressive every year. This year we have Lahore hit thee times, which is the capital of Punjab, which is the safest province in the country. It has perfectly running water and most of the army comes from Punjab. But they’ve been hit three times. It’s an alarming rate. We have to connect this to the growing civil war in Pakistan, which started off in the tribal areas and moved near the capital and is coming into the country. This is the war against the government, which I think might have started off as a reaction against the War on Terror and American involvement, but I think now it’s very much concentrated against the state of Pakistan.
ALI: Musharaff seems to have slipped under the radar. What’s his role in Zardari’s new PPP controlled Pakistan? The U.S. still backs Musharaff, however, and he is still President. What’s his future?
BHITTO: So long as there’s an American occupation of Afghanistan, Musharaff will remain viable and indispensable. He has played his cards badly inside the country. He has lost a lot of control and power within the country. He picked General Kiyani to replace him as Chief of Army, but the word is that the army has had enough of Musharaff and he has brought on loss of respect for the armed forces. Personally, I think his role in the next government is to wait and watch. He has enabled this government to come forward and perhaps quite wisely. This is the government that has to deal with price inflation, greenage shortages; it has to deal with a civil war that is brewing across the country, which is no longer in the tribal areas. This is the government that has to deal with renewed American strength in Pakistan. We’ve seen since 2008 a tremendous amount of American air strikes, and they are reported as having great accuracy and tremendous precision, but it is never explained to us who is allowing the Americans to come in almost directly and conduct their business on Pakistan soil. So this government has to deal with a de facto American invasion and occupation of parts of Pakistan.
I think Musharaff prefers that these other politicians and parties deal with that, while he sits on the sidelines and waits for them to fail. But the question is will they allow him to do this and have any part of it? Will he have any future once this government disintegrates? I think that is looking increasingly unlikely as time goes by.
ALI: Islam permeates the cultural and political psyche of Pakistan’s society. What should Islam’s role be in modern day Pakistan, from a political level and from a grass roots socio-cultural level as well?
BHUTTO: This is an Islamic republic of Pakistan, but it was founded in its inception not as an Islamic state but rather as a state for Muslims. We’ve seen Islam used as a means of oppression, under Zia for example, the Hudood Ordinance was brought in as a piece of Islamic law, but has no connection to Islamic law. Islam as a religion has given women a tremendous amount of rights. Certainly, it was very progressive in its treatment of women at that time, and if you look at other religions, Islam is one that gives women the right to divorce and the right to property. But the laws of Hudood do not reflect the progressive side of Islam. I think when you bring in religion into the equation you ultimately use it to silence people and use it as a means to scare people into submission. Unfortunately, that’s what happened in this country, you cannot say please remove the Hudood Legalisations which is extraordinarily offensive to women, because it’s seen as Islamic legislation and it would be seen as blasphemous to ask to remove an Islamic piece of the law.
Ultimately, Islam in Pakistan has to be private, it has to be followed individually. This is a country that has four very distinct provinces. We have a minority presence in this country as well. We have Hindus, Jains, Christians, Sikhs, we used to have Jews. Part of this diversity, certainly cultural diversity and linguistic diversity, and anything that seeks to close off anything different, to cut off people and make them more exclusive – it’s going to be difficult to absorb in a country as diverse as Pakistan. For the most part it’s always been harmonious in its diversity. Islam plays a very large part in people’s life, in the psyche and the culture as you said.
But in Sindh, Islam is seen through the Sufi tradition, and has many followers here, which is certainly very different from the Wahabbi Islam, which is trickling down from Afghanistan and is funded by Saudi money. Preferably, Sufi Islam is much better than Wahabbi Islam. But you can’t impose one kind of Islam on a nation of people, so it’s better to be private.
ALI: You’ve lived under the microscope of infamy and scrutiny. That’s been your life. Now, as you’re becoming more vocal and visible, it’s going to continue. How do you cope with it? Does it ever become normal, or is it something you learn to deal with?
BHUTTO: I live in one part a public life because of my family and because people imagine you’re fair game. That I don’t relish at all. That is bizarre and uncomfortable. But through my writings and my speaking out, I think it’s so necessary, because if you’re being too quiet, then you are doing the government’s job for them. I’m not interested in helping any government quiet dissent. I think it makes it important to keep speaking out and speaking about Pakistan and what life is like here and what the government has done to this country. It’s so we don’t forget. Milan Kundera has said, and I think this is so true, he said, “The struggle of people against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” And for places like Pakistan that are violent and are repressive through authoritarian rule, whether military or civilian elected, what we have in a lot of these countries is we have our words and our memories. The minute you surrender that I think it’s game over. That balances out the uncomfortable-ness or discomfort rather of having to be seen and noticed in the public.
ALI: What’s the future for Fatima Bhutto? A political Bhutto? A journalist? A writer- poet – politician? What have you decided now at the age of 25?
I’m not interested in going into politics, they always smile at me and say, “Wink wink, nudge nudge, just kidding, but no, really, what’s the real answer?” I always tell them I’m not saying no or yes or saying no for now, but maybe next year. If the situation were different, then my answer would be different. But the environment is not different; this is the environment we live in. For me to go into politics would be to perpetuate a system I don’t believe in. A system of dynastic rule and perpetuate a system of personalities.
Wajahat Ali is Pakistani Muslim American who is neither a terrorist nor a saint. He is a playwright, essayist, humorist, and Attorney at Law, whose work, “The Domestic Crusaders,” (www.domesticcrusaders.com) is the first major play about Muslim Americans living in a post 9-11 America. His blog is at http://goatmilk.wordpress.com/. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Violence and unpredictably court Pakistan like a loyal and persistent stalker – or spurned lover. Over the past year, nearly a thousand Pakistanis have died as a direct result of suicide bombings, roadside blasts and conflicts with militants and extremists operating within its borders. Alongside the violence, Pakistan elected the PPP [Bhutto’s party] with a clear majority, however Musharaff still retains his role as President with U.S. support and backing. Asif Zardari, Benazir’s husband also affectionately known as “Mr. Ten Percent” for his illustrious career in corruption, was recently acquitted of all criminal charges, thus making him a candidate for Prime Minister. And, before one forgets, there’s also the dramatic rise of “the Pakistan Taliban” and insurgent leftovers from the Afghan-Soviet war. Veteran Pakistani journalist, Zahid Hussain, clearly analyzes the forces leading to Pakistan’s sudden surge of violence and militancy in his celebrated book, Frontline Pakistan: The Struggle with Militant Islam, which was praised by both Seymour Hersh and Taliban author, Ahmed Rashid. Here’s an exclusive conversation with Hussain that took place just this week.
ALI: A Bomb blast just happened in Pakistan [March 11th, twin suicide bombs killing nearly 24 in Lahore.] You’re there and you’re on the scene. Tell us in America what we don’t see on CNN or FOX News. Who did it? Why did it happen? What the reality on the ground?
HUSSAIN: This is the latest in the series of suicide bombings which has shaken Pakistan over the last few months. There has been a marked intensification in these terrorist attacks. The latest attack was at FIA – The Federal Investigation Agency building. It definitely looks like the work of Islamic militants. This building was particularly targeted, since it has a counter terrorism unit, which was trained by the U.S. That could be major reason for it being targeted.
In the last few months, we’ve seen that the terrorists have increasingly targeted the security institutions and army installations. Nobody ever claimed responsibility for these attacks, but what the police and intelligence agencies suspect that it is all emanating from the [Northern] Tribal Regions. And, possibly, could be the work of Al Qaeda.
ALI: So, you say the Waziristan and Northern Tribal regions of Pakistan could possibly be connected to these attacks on security bases, but the ISI [Pakistan’s Intelligence Agency], which you described in your book as a “state within the state” and the “Big Brother” of Pakistan, has tangential and direct connections to extremist groups. So, why are these extremist militants now turning around and attacking the same intelligence agencies, arguably, that have nurtured them for the past 20 years?
HUSSAIN: Certainly, they helped these militant organizations, because [the militants] were helping and serving Pakistan’s regional policy. They were used as instruments of policy for over 20 years, but definitely things changed after 9-11. First, there was pressure from the United States. The Pakistan and American government suspended the support of the Taliban government. Despite the fact the ISI had helped prop up the Taliban government in Afghanistan- which also helped America as well. Obviously, then there was suspicion that the part of the ISI had still – if not directly patronizing the militant organizations – continued to have that link.
Over the past 2 years, this is no longer the situation. Until December 2006, we had not seen the army or military organizations targeted by the militants. But this changes after 2 or 3 incidents. Particularly, about 80 so-called militants, or people say, madrassa students, were killed. That was the turning point I suppose. The attack was supposedly carried out by the U.S., but the Pakistani government owned it.
After that, we had seen – for the first time- militants had targeted the army outside the tribal areas. A suicide bomb attack on the training ground in Northern province killed about 40 soldiers. It increased further in July 2007, after the raid on the Red Mosque [Pakistani commando units killed nearly 173 radical students, when overtaking the besieged Red Mosque.] After that, we’ve seen a large rise in suicide bomb attacks. The army and intelligence service agencies then became the prime target of those attacks.
That would be the turning point. There have been at least 7 to 8 attacks in Rawalpindi [District of Pakistan in Northern Punjab province] alone.
ALI: You’ve traveled to Afghanistan. You’ve been to Waziristan and crossed the border. You’ve seen the most dangerous places close hand. Before we discuss extremism and militant Islam, I want you to give me your definition and characteristic traits of militancy existing within Pakistan today. What aspects of Pakistani society today do you consider as the militant extremists?
HUSSAIN: The militants are those forces, who at one point, formed an organization to wage so-called jihad in Kashmir and Afghanistan. We saw those organizations, in particular, in the 1990’s. All those organizations had come up and were formed by the leaders who had fought in Afghanistan, those who had fought with the Afghan mujaheddin, in the 1980’s. But, later, after the end of Soviet control over Afghanistan, these same people formed militant organizations that first fought in Kashmir, and also, some of them supported the Taliban government in Afghanistan. In 1990’s, when they were formed, they all had tacit support from the Pakistani intelligence agencies. At that time, the jihad militancy was used as a part of Pakistan’s’ policy.
After 9-11, what happened is that President Musharaff banned some of the organizations, and some of them disintegrated and turned into a small cell that had already operated in Pakistan. After 2001, they started attacking the foreign consulates. We have seen the attack on the American consulate 3 times. They were not happy with Pakistan’s policy, but initially, their target was foreign installations. They did not target the Pakistani military understanding, ultimately, that the military would eventually be their supporters.
Some of these groups have been waging jihad against the Pakistani government – against the government of Musharaff – thinking that he had collaborated with the Americans. So, anyone who had collaborated with Americans had to become their target. There is also a perception that the Pakistan military is pursuing the American agenda. This is the change we have seen in Pakistan over the past one and a half years.
ALI: Let’s build a foundation. Let’s talk about Kashmir, which for some reason no one discusses here in the American press. Here is a small, sliver of land, most would argue is hardly worth fighting over, yet it has caused 2 wars and is a prime catalyst for mutually assured destruction between India and Pakistan. Why is Kashmir so significant, and how has it, if at all, been used and abused as a proxy for political gain?
HUSSAIN: Well, I wouldn’t say that it is just a small piece of land. Definitely, this has been a root cause of problems between both countries since their inception as independent states. It has been the major cause of conflict between the two countries. It goes back to 1989, there was an indigenous uprising by Kashmiris against Indian policy. And, definitely, Pakistan did support this uprising. Initially, what we had seen was that the people who were fighting against the Indian army were the Kashmiris themselves, who might have got some training from Pakistan. But after the early 1990’s, we saw a large number of Pakistani fighters going inside Kashmir and fighting. So, in a way, that is what has kept that struggle alive.
But, in fact, it has had huge consequences in that it has damaged the Kashmiri’s struggle and it has definitely harmed them. It showed India that it was nothing else but support from Pakistan for the Pakistan militants fighting there. The military did not realize the long-term consequences of doing this. The 2 major effects is that number one: it harms Kashmiri’s political struggle for independence. The second thing they didn’t realize is that by supporting these militant Islamic units supposedly waging jihad against India and to liberate Kashmir, they didn’t realize this would come back and haunt them.
HUSSAIN: Yeah, a blowblack. And then when the Pakistan government tried to stop them, the militants turned the jihad inwards, and that’s what we’re facing today in Pakistan.
ALI: The decision and political machinations to declare Pakistan’s Prime Minister were discussed this week on the cover of the New York Times. To observers, Pakistan looks like Monty Pythons flying circus. We have twice deposed, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Bhutto’s convict husband Asif Zadari, affectionately know as “Mr. 10%” for his history of corruption, and Musharaff, a man who exiled Nawaz Sharif since the latter tried to assassinate him. With all these selfish, political players in power, one must ask: does this represent a return to democracy for Pakistan or is this just a front for feudal power-sharing like we’ve seen before?
HUSSAIN: I don’t think so. The people of Pakistan have given a clear verdict. The past is certainly not enviable, but it is a political process. I don’t agree with the people who malign everything; those who say that Pakistan isn’t fit for democracy. I think it’s wrong. Even in democracies, we have seen cases of corruption. In India, we have seen that the whole system, the politicians, almost every big politician has been accused of something or another. Rajiv Ghadni, when he was Prime Minister, he was accused of getting commissions on transactions. I’m not saying that all politicians there are not clean. But, India has come through a process.
As far as Nawaz Sharif and others are concerned, look, they have made many mistakes, but still actually they represent people here. People have voted for them here, and one must respect that. These kinds of articles that are printed about Pakistan, they do not see the whole picture. This is a typical thing which says, “Pakistan is not fit for democracy. It cannot run the government itself.” And I don’t agree with that.
ALI: The United States, as you know, has been very timid in its recent relations and approach with Pakistan specifically about the restoration of the Justices who were sacked by Musharaff last year. Yet, at the same time, they gave Musharaff nearly $10 billion dollars, who now seems like a lame duck, and billions of dollars to former dictator General Zia. So, how is this a microcosm of United States’ overall policy towards Pakistan in the past 20 years? And why are they still supporting Musharaff?
HUSSAIN: It is basically a very narrow policy. They always try to rely on military rulers thinking they can best help their interests in the long-term. What I think is when you say, “They gave $10 billion to Musharaff” – they didn’t give it to one person, but basically since Pakistan is strategically very important to the U.S., that’s why they get military aid. Most of this aid has come in the form military hardware. That basically shows the paradox in American policy. On one hand, they keep talking about democracy, yet they keep supporting military rulers. I’m not much concerned about the judiciary issue. I don’t want America to interfere in any way, and I don’t think they can help restore democracy. I’m not one of those people who says look America should support this person or that person – no. You must really have faith in democracy; if you do, you must allow that to operate and function. Allow that process to continue. This is the best option Pakistan now has to return to democracy. Every democracy loving country should support that process.
Wajahat Ali is Pakistani Muslim American who is neither a terrorist nor a saint. He is a playwright, essayist, humorist, and Attorney at Law, whose work, “The Domestic Crusaders,” (www.domesticcrusaders.com) is the first major play about Muslim Americans living in a post 9-11 America. His blog is at http://goatmilk.wordpress.com/. He can be reached at email@example.com
FREE PAKISTAN: An Exclusive Interview with Imran Khan on today’s Parliamentary elections, the future of Musharaff, and the hope for a democratic Pakistan
Hoping for a good innings
KHAN: You can just do any random sampling. You can see that people who are coming in – the PML-Q [Musharraf’s party] if it wins, no one will accept the results. No is going to accept the results.
Ok, so no one is going to accept the results. Here is the natural follow up question. Should we expect much violence and bloodshed following the announcement of the results?
KHAN: I think, As I said, there was a poll conducted and 58% of the people said that they would not accept the result if the PML-Q comes to power. Fifty eight percent! And they would go out and demonstrate. This is from a poll done recently.
I need your thoughts on today’s quotation by Musharraf, where he said, “Whatever the result, whatever the result, we will accept it with grace. Whoever is the prime minister, I will work with that person in a reconciliatory mode. We should end the confrontationist politics. Let’s enter into a conciliatory politics.” Do you believe him? Should the world believe him?
KHAN: No one in Pakistan believes him, because everyone knows he has gone back on his word so many times. He has no credibility. In the first election, in 2002, he said, “All I’m interested in is someone becomes Prime Minister, so I can play golf.” And, he did actually anything but that. Again, again, he’s making these statements, but he’s going to rig these elections to the point where he thinks his party can still win. There was a statement out in the paper in an interview he gave where he said he thinks MQM [a Pakistan political party not expected to win] and PML-Q will win the majority seats and will win the elections.
Well, according to the polls, that’s ridiculous.
KHAN: Absolutely. What I’m saying is what he says and what he’s trying to do is two different things. We’ve heard all this – he’s made these false promises so many times that no one trusts him anymore.
The two main opposition parties, now this is a rumor, suggested they unite against Musharraf’s party. This again is Benazir Bhutto’s PPP led by her husband Zardari and Nawaz Sharif’s [Pakistan's former Prime Minister recently returned from exile]. They said if they could capture two thirds of the seats in parliament and form a coalition, then they would win a two-thirds majority in parliament and take steps to impeach Musharraf. Is a united front going to be successful against Musharraf? Or, like you said, all is rigged and all is lost?
KHAN: Well, if there was a two-thirds majority, if they were free and fair elections, they would get it. But, they are not free and fair elections, I’ll doubt they’ll get the majority. But, there’s always a fear in our minds that People’s Party [Bhutto's party] might for the fourth time bail out Musharraf by doing a power sharing deal with him. Now, really, this is the next step. Are they going to do a power sharing deal with him?
That’s the question on my mind and most policy experts and pundits as well. Is Zardari going to do a power sharing deal? Will a power sharing deal be engineered between the United States, Zardari’s PPP, and Musharaff?
KHAN: Well, look, if [Zardari] does so, remember, not only will the People’s Party be destroyed, but anyone who now does a deal with Musharraf will destroy himself. If the U.S. backs Zardari – and people will know that if Zardari does a deal with Musharraf, they will know he’s doing a deal to get off his corruption cases [Zardari is affectionately known as “Mr. 10%” in Pakistan due the steep kickbacks he allegedly pocketed during his wife's tenure]. And so, he will destroy his own party. I don’t think even People’s Party will accept him. [The] People’s Party won’t accept that deal.
Let’s ask a question for the layman. What are the results going to be tomorrow? What are we going to see?
KHAN: Well, I don’t know what the results are. It’s the lowest turn out. But, as we know, Musharraf did a referendum, and there was no one out to give votes, but Musharraf showed, and the election commission showed a 75% turnout! That’s even more than Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s turnout! [Benazir Bhutto’s father, who was Pakistan’s popular and controversial Prime Minster, was hung by General Zia-al-Haq following a bloodless coup]. Therefore, no one trusts the results that the elections commissions are going to come up with. That’s why we feel it should’ve been an independent election commission. This election commission – no one has any faith in it.
“The West” has popularized the image of Benazir Bhutto and her party, The PPP [Pakistan People’s Party], as saviors of democracy in Pakistan. What is the truth behind that image?
KHAN: Well, I’m afraid [the] People’s Party has already bailed out Musharraf three times when he was sinking. They actually went against the democratic movement. We were all wanting the Constitution and the re-instatement of [the illegally sacked] judges, and People’s Party bailed him firstly by not resigning from their assemblies – so they legitimized his Presidential elections. Number two, they did not boycott the elections when Musharraf held this illegal, unconstitutional State of Emergency [in November 2007, Musharraf sacked critical judges, jailed attorneys, and shut down NGO's and independent media] and he held elections under the Emergency. And number three, when Benazir was assassinated, all parties wanted to boycott the elections and first find out who killed her. And Zardari wanted to go ahead with the elections again to save Musharraf. If they save him, this will be the fourth time they will save Musharraf, so I don’t think the rank and file of People’s Party will accept it. He will damage the People’s Party if he does a deal now.
You’re an insider to Pakistan’s political scene. I want your opinion on this. What is America’s interest in supporting Musharraf, and not only him, but also in supporting a power sharing deal between him and Zardari’s PPP?
KHAN: Because Musharraf has sold the idea to the Americans – he has sold the myth that he is the only one who can fight the U.S. “war on terror” and he is indispensable. Therefore, the Bush Administration is blindly backing Musharraf, and as a result, you see the situation where Musharaff is completely unpopular in Pakistan. Everyone wants him out. What we’re seeing is that the U.S. administration is backing Musharraf and wanting a civilian façade, which is why they wanted a People’s Party deal with him.
Here’s what everyone says in America: “If not Musharraf, then it’ll be the Taliban or Al Qaeda taking over Pakistan, so we should choose the lesser of evils.”
KHAN: This is an example of Musharraf propaganda. He’s selling himself to the West that he is a bastion against fundamentalism and Taliban-ization. It is a complete myth. If you look at Pakistan’s electoral history, even the religious parties were not extreme; even they have hardly got any votes. Whenever we’ve had general elections, they’ve always been beaten. Today, Maulana Fazlur Rahman fighting in the name of MMA [the right wing, conservative religious party], he’s taking a bashing, he’s going to barely survive according to the opinion polls. So, people in this country are moderate. Actually, who’s fostering extremism has always been military dictatorships. Whenever we’ve had growth in extremism it’s always been under a military dictator. Whenever you’ve had people who have been allowed to vote, the free and fair vote has always marginalized the extremists.
You know Pakistan’s image in the world. CNN labeled it as “Terror Central” and the Economist called it “The Most Dangerous Nation on Earth.” You have bomb blasts and attacks last week and this week at polling stations, you have kidnappings and disappearances of your diplomats, etc. So how do you convince the world that extremism and violence is not the real face of Pakistan? That Pakistan is indeed moderate under the weight of all this evidence?
KHAN: First of all, the United States backed a dictator [General Zia, Pakistan's ruler under Martial Law from 1977 to 1988] who took us into the Afghan jihad – never consulting the people of Pakistan. CIA and Pakistan’s ISI trained these people to fight the Soviet occupation in the art of terrorism. Once the Soviets left, Pakistan was lumbered with these people, these guerilla fighters. Then, this other dictator [Musharraf] then takes us to start eliminating these people. We never went in the first Afghan jihad with the backing of the people of Pakistan. We never went into the second, front line state against terror with the backing of the people of Pakistan. Both were military dictators.
Now, thanks to the way Musharraf has participated in the U.S. war on terror, where Pakistan is killing its own people through helicopter gun ships and bombing villages in the tribal areas – there is a backlash. And that backlash is what’s making Pakistan a dangerous place. The moment we have a genuine, democratic government, and they start talking to people and they start negotiating with people and holding dialogue rather than talking with these bullets and bombs, we will again go back to a normal country.
And I’m sad to say that it is the U.S. backing of a military dictator that has gotten us into this mess. It’s the military dictator that got us in there. If we had a democratic government, we wouldn’t have been in this, because our decisions would’ve been much better than what Musharraf has done. Of course, we should’ve always backed the U.S. in this war against terror. But, not the way, blindly following every dictate and now getting ourselves into this situation where our country’s own existence is in threat. Now Pakistan, a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, we now are fighting for our existence. And unless we change strategy, the future is in danger.
The natural question then is how can one get autonomy for Pakistani citizens? How do you bring democracy to this country that is currently under the world’s microscope?
KHAN: The only way, the only way forward is to have the judges reinstated. Then, they give independence to the media and the election commission. Free and fair elections. That’s the only way out for Pakistan.
How do you get out under the thumb of the military? Is it at all possible?
KHAN: If you have an independent powerful judiciary – that is the way you get out of the military’s thumb. They will make the military act according to the Constitution.
Several critics of Pakistan say all this is an example of Pakistan acting as a failed state, and this proves that Pakistan should have never undergone the 1947 Partition with India. Because, well, look at them, Pakistanis are now killing themselves. Is this an accurate assessment?
KHAN: Absolute nonsense! Pakistan is a very viable state. We’ve had a problem because the military kept interfering in our democratic process. We never went through a trial and error period where we could have evolved, where our democracy could have evolved. Now, I think we have, in a way, a very fortunate situation where it looks as if we are finally going to move towards a democratic system the moment our judges are reinstated. And then, Pakistan has a very bright future.
Pretend by some magic, you’ve become Pakistan’s Prime Minster, and you’re given control and autonomy. What would be the first immediate steps and actions you would take to change Pakistan’s current course?
KHAN: I would first of all have rule of law and institutionalize the independence of the judiciary. Secondly, I would have an education emergency in Pakistan. Thirdly, I would have an employment emergency. Finally, I would change the economic policies to change it from an elitist system, but change it to make sure that the priority becomes the common man: the bottom 40% of the population. Ok?
Can I get a last question?
KHAN (voice trailing): Ok, I’ve got to go. Khuda Hafiz [May God protect you].
Khuda Hafiz [May God protect you].
An uncertain future
The vast majority of Pakistani citizens, according to my friends and family who live there, lament the tragic actions of an extremist minority that continues to pollute and threaten the spirit, character, and personal safety of the nation. To the ears of “Westerners,” whose only exposure to Pakistan by the US media has been a simplistic, cartoon-like depiction of angry extremism ["Rage Boy"] and enlightened “moderation” of a military dictatorship [Musharaff], this sentiment rings false and hollow. Indeed, “Rage Boy” has become the ubiquitous image of not only Pakistani politics, but also 160 million Pakistani citizens; “Rage Boy” is a bearded, irrationally angry, frothing, anti-American extremist whose occupation consists of three full time jobs: burning American flags, studying at an Islamic fundamentalist madrassas, and engaging in anti-American terrorist activities. Any proper student of history or anthropology with even a modicum of knowledge regarding Pakistan’s diverse socio-cultural identity would scoff at that simplistic depiction. Sadly, nuances and complexity are not afforded media air-time amidst Pakistan’s continuing and repeated, albeit isolated, acts of sensationalistic violence.
This dualistic and Manichean representation of Pakistan manifests itself with the description of the personality at the center of this recent, contagious conflagration: Bhutto. Mere hours after her assassination, Bhutto was both praised as a “shaheed” [a martyr], “a beacon for democracy,” “a model of progress,” “a loyal friend to democracy,” and condemned as “a traitor,” “a US puppet,” and everything in between. When extremism, political fervor, and selfish interests marry, the resulting progeny is usually instability, uncertainty and violence; common sense, rationality, and moderation are generally aborted.
Prime Minister Bhutto
Before outlining the possible motives and culprits of this dreadful assassination, a cursory look at Bhutto and her political career is needed. Following in the dynastic footsteps of her father, the Harvard and Oxford educated Bhutto became the head of the PPP [Pakistan's People Party] and was elected as the country’s first female Prime Minister in 1988. In a stunning twist of fate, irony, or cunning (depending on whom you ask), she succeeded the assassinated General Zia al Haq, the same man responsible for hanging her father in 1977. Although plaudits and adulations have been heaped on the recently deceased Bhutto, her political tenure in Pakistan was marred by ineffectuality and widespread charges of corruption, which effectively ended both of her terms as Prime Minister. [It should be noted that Nawaz Sharif's first term was dismissed for corruption charges as well.]
Specifically, Bhutto was accused of stealing more than $1 billion from Pakistan’s treasury, and Switzlerand convicted Bhutto of laundering nearly $11 million. Furthermore, Bhutto’s husband, Asif Zardari, is affectionately known in Pakistan as “Mr. Ten Percent,” an honorable title he earnestly earned for receiving a “10%” commission from all government contracts.
Also, it is worth noting that Bhutto, who in the past few hours has been hailed as “Pakistan’s last hope for democracy and reform,” financially and militarily supported and strengthened Afghanistan’s repressive, extremist and misogynist Taliban government that came to power in 1996. The Taliban’s disastrous and archaic human rights policy, hardly democratic or progressive, was conveniently swept under the rug in lieu of pacifying the Afghan region to ensure beneficial and lucrative trade routes to Central Asia. Like a scene from King Lear or Godfather 2 – if Bhutto’s own niece and political critics are to be believed – Bhutto engineered the still unsolved assassination of her estranged brother, Murtaza, in 1996 to consolidate political leadership of the PPP. Bhutto’s political history, thus, is marred by several questionable controversies, rank corruption and abuse. Why, then, was she promoted by the United States as a harbinger of peace and democracy?
The fateful triangle
Reports indicate that the United States, Musharraf and Bhutto recently agreed to a brokered power sharing deal, whereby Musharraf would retain his Presidency, Bhutto would be named Prime Minster and her numerous corruption charges would bypass the courts and be “dropped” due to the creation of a “National Reconciliation Ordinance.” The deal was suspect from the beginning and only further deteriorated with Bhutto’s return from exile to Pakistan in October, when a devastating assassination attempt on her life, still unsolved, left nearly 140 people dead.
The nail in the coffin was hammered by Musharraf, who unilaterally implemented a State of Emergency in November. Experts state his action was motivated by the Supreme Court’s adverse ruling regarding his eligibility to lead Pakistan, thereby denying him a right to lead as both President and Chief of Army Staff, a title he relinquished only recently. As a result, The United States’ erstwhile democratic ally, Musharraf, undemocratically suspended the Constitution, ousted and jailed Supreme Court judges and lawyers critical of his policies and leadership, detained nearly 2,000 human rights activists, and silenced independent media and news stations. Although publicly reprimanding Musharraf’s “questionable” (one could say “undemocratic”) actions, the White House remained loyal to their dictator-of- choice, because the US has provided Pakistan with nearly $10 billion in aid as “good will currency” in its support to hunt al-Qaeda and extremists within Pakistan’s borders. Specifically, President Bush said he wants democracy in Pakistan, but “at the same time, we want to continue working with [Musharraf] to fight these terrorists and extremists.”
Two weeks before the State of Emergency prompted his unlawful arrest, incarceration and subsequent kidney failure, Muneer Malik, Pakistan’s former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association and prominent critic of Musharraf, gave me an exclusive interview, in which he proclaimed a statement shared by many in Pakistan: “The US supports dictatorships that suit its interests. It is never interested in the masses of Pakistan. The power sharing between Benzair and Musharraf will only perpetuate military hegemony. The mindset of the politicians is that the road to Islamabad [Pakistan's capital] leads from Washington and not from the streets of Pakistan.”
A grand irony results from observing this alliance. The United States wants to support democracy in Pakistan by allowing Musharraf to implement undemocratic measures and dictatorial practices to ensure Pakistan’s future democracy. That is akin to endorsing an avowed pacifist who feels forced to purge his enemies through murder and violence in order to bring peace.
Precisely due to Musharraf’s recent array of dictatorial and undemocratic suppressions of dissent – specifically the sacking and arrests of Supreme Court justices and attorneys – and extreme unpopularity amongst his own people, the US hoped Bhutto would serve as an ameliorative and reliable presence for their interests. Her political presence, it was argued, could act as a counterbalance to Musharraf, thus ensuring some semblance of stability in Pakistan. Specifically, before returning to Pakistan in October, Bhutto had publicly stated she would allow the United States within Pakistan’s borders to assist in hunting Al-Qaeda operatives and terror cells. Bhutto said,
“I would hope that I would be able to take Osama bin Laden myself without depending on the Americans. But if I couldn’t do it, of course we [Pakistan and US] are fighting this war together and [I] would seek their co-operation in eliminating him.”
Her critics questioned her sincerity and motives in potentially allowing Pakistan’s sovereignty to be threatened by inviting America to strike within Pakistani soil. The critics responded by calling her America’s “stooge” and “puppet,” a woman willing to appease Western nations by any means to ensure her political power.
This charge and allegation of “servitude to the United States” arguably ensured her assassination or, at the very least, cemented her unpopularity amongst an extremist political segment of Pakistan. However, with the January parliamentary elections around the corner and the power sharing deal all but quashed by Musharraf, Bhutto changed her tune. In her final speech on the day of her assassination, she passionately declared, “Why should foreign troops come in? We can take care of this [referring to resurgent Al Qaeda extremists in Pakistan], I can take care of this, you [Pakistani citizens] can take care of this.” Did this duplicitous, flip flop statement make Bhutto a Janus – a two headed Roman God – or was this a sincere change of conviction? Sadly, Pakistan will never know the answer.
The smoking gun?
What is known, however, is that Bhutto foreshadowed her death, or at the very least was extremely cognizant of potential attempts on her life. In October, she informed her spokesman, Mark Siegel, via email to make public the following statement if she was to be killed in Pakistan: “I [Bhutto] would hold Musharraf responsible.” Bhutto’s aides told CNN that she accused Musharraf of “deliberately failing to provide adequate security measures” in Rawalpindi, which included failing to provide her a four-car police escort and jamming devices against bombs. After the devastating October assassination attempt on her life, Bhutto accused Pakistan’s intelligence services [the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI] in having a hand in the suicide attack on her convoy. Although it is premature to conclusively determine who masterminded the assassination attempt, Bhutto’s supporters place the blame firmly on Musharraf’s shoulders, whom they believe either engineered the attack or acted negligently in failing to deter it.
From one angle, Musharraf’s recent actions portray a consistent pattern of unilateral power grabs by stifling opposition and criticism. His state of emergency and declaration of temporary “martial law” serve as prime evidence of that argument. This recent tragedy has further destabilized the country prompting mass protests and vandalism thereby giving Musharraf a rationalization and excuse, according to his critics, to impose martial law yet again if he so chooses and curb the democratic process.
Since the United States has no political allies in Pakistan that it feels it can remotely trust, one can argue they will be forced, out of necessity and desperation, to tacitly endorse Musharraf and promote him as an “ally against terrorism” and “hope for democracy.” The West fears that the nuclear weapons and technology of Pakistan will fall in the hands of an extremist minority that will align itself with Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces, thus endangering US presence not only in the Middle East but South Asia as well. However, it is imperative to note that the extremist element of Pakistan (aka “Rage Boy”) is but a despised minority that doesn’t even have enough legitimacy to secure a political majority in even the most fundamentalist regions of the North Western Frontier Province and Punjab.
Yet, this miniscule fraction of the population, when united with ideologically like-minded sympathizers within the ISI, could have orchestrated this latest round of violence according to Pakistani intellectuals and pundits. As of now, no group has claimed responsibility. However, many believe rogue elements of Pakistan’s highly secretive and powerful ISI in association with al-Qaeda sympathizers bear scrutiny. When asked who engineered the October assassination attempt on Bhutto, Muneer Malik simply stated, “the intelligence agencies.” When I asked him about the July “Red Mosque” tragedy, and specifically who armed the radical students [in July, the military raided the Red Mosque that was besieged by heavily armed radical Muslim students resulting in nearly 173 deaths], Malik replied, “It was a scam of the intelligence agencies. How could arms have been smuggled in the Masjid [Mosque] that is located less than a kilometer from the ISI headquarters?” In fact, Bhutto’s husband, Asif Zardari, pointed his finger at the ISI for the October assassination attempt as well: “I blame the government for these blasts,” he said. “It is the work of the intelligence agencies.” Many share this belief.
A Pakistani requiem
Perhaps the identity of the real culprits may never be known. One can only hope that they are found soon. Regardless, Benazir Bhutto has now been buried next to her father in their family’s ancestral village on the day of juma (Friday), a holy day for Muslims. As her mourners ascribed to the rituals of the Islamic funeral procession, many have taken turns supporting her casket on their shoulders, eventually guiding the deceased to her burial grounds. For some, they will literally carry their last vestige of hope for a democratic Pakistan. Others will carry the last of a dynamic and volatile political dynasty. Most will carry a tragic but common reminder of violence that has claimed too many of Pakistan’s icons and leaders. The Namaaze-I-Janaza, the Islamic requiem as it is known in Urdu, requires Muslims attending the funeral to supplicate Allah asking His forgiveness and blessings for the recently deceased. Perhaps they can pray for Pakistan as well.