Reconsiliation

Is the fresh breeze of reconciliation flowing in the country real? Will it last for some time or is it just a whiff? Such questions are raised by edgy Pakistanis, while the media is trying to find out the answers for them. Two ugly incidences in Karachi and Lahore have quelled the euphoria about reconciliation.

 

To begin with we should analyse: whether the country needs “National Reconciliation” or not; how many expectations should be attached to this new phenomenon; is it fair to expect from the newly elected government to give us an atmosphere of tolerance, peace and tranquility overnight; and will all political parties rise to the occasion.

 

There are perhaps no two views that the country needs reconciliation after 8 years of victimizing the opposition, smaller nationalities and military operations. The fissures are so deep that it would take time to fill them. Had Pakistan’s political process moved on in accordance to the rules of the game set in the constitution, the need for a deliberate initiation of grand reconciliation wouldn’t have risen.

 

The credit for this initiative should be given where it’s due. Backed by the Western governments the initiative was taken by PPP’s Chairperson Benazir Bhutto and President Musharraf. Ms Bhutto’s vision for grand reconciliation not only in Pakistan but within the Muslim societies and with the West is adequately laid in her last book Reconciliation.  President Musharraf was coaxed into this because his political bed partners were sterile. He entered in this deal reluctantly as he needed the support of a robust political party, which could give support to the anti-Islamic extremist programme. What the President’s club failed to foresee was that Ms Bhutto had cleverly trapped him in opening the door for other democratic forces like PML (N).

 

Many idealists say that the reconciliation move from PPP was to get the corruption cases withdrawn and find an entry for its leaders in Pakistan. They may also criticise the President for doing this to extend his rule and to please the Americans. Both the charges are correct. But one should bear in mind that in politics most people work in self or class interest. The good that flows to the people is the by-product of human greed, as defined by Adam Smith. People can get the best by keeping the pressure on politicians, directly and through the media, so that the ratio of benefits to them is higher than the ruling classes want to give them.

 

PPP’s Co-chairman Asif Zardari and PML leader Mian Nawaz Sharif should be given full credit for forgiving each other for the past and entering a coalition. Zardari moved forward with the Reconciliation baton handed down to him by the valiant Ms. Bhutto. He rallied the support of ANP in NWFP and many smaller parties in Balochistan. He has offered an olive branch to Balochistan nationalists and tribal militants. He walked to 90 Azizabad to PPP’s arch rivals MQM, who also opened the doors for him. All this is too good to believe. Many journalists are already apprehensive that such a broad-based coalition would not last long.

 

Though it is too early to hazard a forecast, the longevity of this coalition should be gauged on the mutual interests of the partners. PPP needs PML(N) in the centre because otherwise it would have to rely on PML (Q) and MQM to form the government. They also need each other because both want to restrict the President to his constitutional tight corner, if not out of his office. PML (N) also needs PPP’s support in Punjab to form the government with comfortable majority. Yes, they have some difference in policy about the restoration of judge’s issue and on ‘war’ against terror.

 

But such differences are not deal breakers. We should see the coalitions history in other countries, may they be in the region or in the developed democracies in the West. Italy has had over 52 governments in the last 60 years, because of the shifty coalitions; India next door had many change of governments in the 90s because of coalition breaks and is still struggling with the present one; Germany has an uneasy coalition of the two arch rivals and so on.

 

ANP-PPP alliance in the troubled NWFP and its adjoining tribal belt is also based on each others interdependence, as one cannot form the government without the other. It is also important for both the parties to stay together to tackle the militants’ insurgency in the country and to work to help Afghanistan and NATO fight Al Qaeda and Taliban.

 

In Balochistan to bring the major nationalist leaders back to the table and to extract the Army out of the quagmire a broad-based government is needed. It is also important for the reconciliation that they are on the same side of the table with the centre.

 

Perhaps the most difficult task of reconciliation is in Sindh, the province where PPP has a clear majority in the house. They do not need the support of other parties for the formation of the government. But Sindh is the only province where there is painful divide between the Sindhi speaking Sindhis and Urdu speaking Sindhis. This divide is also accentuated by the concentration of the latter in urban areas of the province, including their strong control in Karachi — the economic hub of Pakistan. The history of PPP-MQM relations is not very conducive as both had killed each others workers. There is also a tussle for government jobs and control over Sindh’s major cities like Karachi, Hyderabad and Sukkur. In spite of bitter historical relations, MQM’s close relations with the President and the PML (Q), the PPP has moved to woo them. MQM’s omnipotent leader has also softened up towards PPP.

 

But it seems to carry it further would be extremely difficult for the PPP as the rank and file is not much convinced with Zardari’s reconciliatory move and MQM is back to its old antics. On the other hand MQM is not willing to accept that Sindh mandate has been given to PPP, they also have seats from urban areas along with ANP. As the second largest party the mandate to MQM is either to sit in the opposition in true democratic tradition or to join the coalition as a junior partner. Asking more than their due share would only complicate the situation and damage the already questionable image of the party. In the interest of the country and the province both PPP and MQM should not push each other and make unrealistic demands.

 

The road to reconciliation is strewn with many potholes and pitfalls. But this should not deter us from taking the journey. Pessimists have no place in the march of history. Only the courageous lead. Nelson Mandela, the living legend of ‘reconciliatory politics’ has summed the spirit of the process: “Courageous people do not fear forgiving, for the sake of peace … We cannot forget, but we can forgive.” (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

 

New government economic challange

Each of the two coalition major partners – PPP and PML (N) – had their good and bad economic policies in their previous two incarnations. Today when in Asif Zardari’s words they have to ‘sink and swim together,’ they will have to learn from their past mistakes and build on their good policies.

 

But first let us have a look at how bad is the economic inheritance. Three major issues will haunt them: Energy crisis, rising prices of food items and oil and worsening balance of trade. Now what should be the immediate move of the coalition government? They don’t have a magic wand. Musharraf’s government is being blamed for mismanaging the energy issue.

 

This is true but not the whole truth. To be fair with the last government we should acknowledge much of the blame should also be shared by the PML government of Nawaz Sharif. They dismantled one of the finest energy policy put forward by Benazir Bhutto’s government. The success of that policy attracted over $3.5 billion investment in the country in a short span of less than 3 years. Then another $3 billion investment was in the pipeline when Ehtesab-ur-Rehman hounded the investors out of the country. Today almost 30% of the total electricity needs are being met by the same much-maligned private sector power producers. Then Musharraf’s government came, which was initially obsessed with accountability and continued with anti-IPP policy. By the time they realised that a high growth rate also means high energy demand it was late. In 2004 they went out to attract investment in the power sector. Those who showed interest were told that they would not get gas hence they have to set up furnace oil based projects. The biggest problem I was told was that the decision-makers were too afraid to grant the tariff which was in the range of 9 to 12 cents per unit. One senior official told me: “When people who sanction 6 to 7 cents a unit were sent to jail how we can agree to higher rates.” This fear and the usual red tapism delayed investment in the power sector till Prime Minister intervened and pushed NEPRA to take a realistic view as the country was moving to an acute electricity shortage. Some decisions were taken and a few projects are in the pipeline but not enough to meet the massive demand. The result is that we are facing almost 8 hours load shedding.

 

So the solution is to go back to the PPP government’s power policy, which was not only successful in Pakistan but was presented as a model to other developing countries. Of course the energy would not be available at our desired low rates. It is better to have electricity at a reasonable price, than not to have it. Now it is accepted internationally that the days of cheap energy and food are over.

 

Now we should take the food prices, which is the most ticklish issue. The good thing is that PPP and PML (N) did not promise the impossible that is to pull down the prices of essential commodities to some unrealistic level. Prices of wheat have gone up by almost 100% last year owing to a rising demand and bad Australian crop. They might come down with the new crop to some extent. But any sharp decline is not expected as the demand of one-third of the world population has surged substantially owing to consistently high growth rates in last few years. Similarly edible oil prices have surged dramatically because of high consumption in the world. World oil prices are also expected to remain high because of rise of oil guzzling Chinese dragon and the Indian tiger.

The most difficult question for the new government would thus be how to provide basic food items to the poor at affordable prices. Keeping eatables prices much lower than the international prices is in the first place not feasible. The urban population is the most vocal in demanding that prices of food items produced in the country should be kept low. They are capable to speak with louder voice and have better access to mass media, so they are more effective. They tend to forget by keeping the prices of these commodities low they are actually denying their rural agriculturist brethren their fair share. And also that if these items would be sold at low prices in the country, much of these commodities would be smuggled out to hungry India and starved Afghanistan.

 

The way forward for the new government would be:

to invest in agriculture to increase the domestic production, to raise the income level of the people who are living below or around the poverty line, to provide welfare allowances to the poor instead of subsidizing everybody and to import food items immediately when there is shortage in the country to keep the prices in control.

 

Worsening balance of trade has to be controlled. First thing is to use all the public support of these political parties for conservation of energy. The energy conservation should be lead by all elected parliamentarian with the same enthusiasm that they showed during their election campaign. Next develop an oil & gas exploration policy that attracts not only the investors but the people of the energy rich areas of Pakistan. Major step in this regard could be to make the local and district council partners in the exploration company so that they get at least 25% of the profits if oil and gas produced from their region. This will not only open up the

no- go areas of Balochistan but will also resolve the decades old dispute between the oil and gas producing regions and the federal government. Today they produce energy of billions of rupees but are the poorest regions of the country. Another way of cutting energy consumption is to provide a good mass transit network for big cities and inter-city travel, instead of taking pride in producing more cars and motorbikes.

 

Nawaz Sharif’s governments had stimulated domestic investors in the past. They can again lead them to invest in their country. In the last 8 years most of the investment has been in the expansion and modernisation of the units. Now investment in new projects is needed. Foreign investment in near future would come mostly from the Middle East as the western investors will remain wary of Pakistan’s security situation. Nawaz Sharif has excellent relations in the oil rich Middle East and he is in a position to lead road shows in these countries and invite the Arab investors.

 

Privatisation process has to be stepped up by the new government. In this regard PPP government’s previous policy to follow the Thatcher model should be revised particularly for big ticket projects. PPP had floated shares of PTCL at the local stock market which got the tremendous response. This policy helps in spreading the benefit to the middle classes and creates depth in the stock market.

 

To do all this the new government should take the difficult decisions in the first 100 days, when the have their shine. As the two major parties are coalition partners, they will have an advantage of taking difficult decisions without fear of tough opposition. But the word of caution here is that they should play as a team, self play of the Ministers lets the team down.  I have witnessed ministers working at cross-purpose with each other in the past government of these parties.  Rise up and deal with these issues with political courage without getting bogged down with the bureaucratic rig morale. You need to put your right leg on the reform accelerator. But beware the heavier foot of bureaucracy would be on the brake. Make sure they own your policies. Good luck! (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

Thorny Legal Inheritence

Newly elected National Assembly would be sworn in today, but they have not much to celebrate. They are cursed with the thorny inheritance being passed on to them by their predecessors. The PPP-PML (N)-ANP-JUI grand coalition would have to click the stop-watch today to start the 30-day count down for the restoration of judiciary. On the streets lawyers would be the cheer-leaders.

 

So far restoration of pre-3/11 judiciary has been presented as a simple issue which can be rectified with the stroke of a pen by the newly inducted government. Most of the former judges of the superior courts and leading jurists agree to this solution. They have the support of all democratic forces in Pakistan who want rule of law in the country.

 

But the problem is that this solution is not acceptable to the President.  All the President’s men are still hopeful that they can pull it together again. President’s lawyers are misleading him and giving the advice which he wants to hear. Perhaps they have forgotten the Humpty Dumpty nursery rhyme. Alas! Intellectual honesty is hard to find in the upper echelons of the government.

 

All the President’s men are out to resist the simple constitutional course for the restoration of judges. In this backdrop sorting out all the thorny issues attached with this bramble are likely to become difficult for the new government. The unconstitutional action taken by President Musharraf on 3/11 and the subsequent measures have created some side issues also.

First, the question would arise, was there a judicial vacuum in the country in the last four months – post 11/3? Most supporters of the restoration of judiciary movement may empathically say “YES.” This may be principally and politically a valid assertion, but the reality is otherwise. The superior judiciary has been working in this period in spite of boycott by many lawyers. True the lawyers’ movement does not recognise the PCO judges, but the reality is that cases were heard by these judges and decisions were given. What will happen to such judgments once we revert back to the pre-3^rd November situation?

 

One solution given by some senior jurists is that if any party involved in these cases is not satisfied with the decision they can always go for the review with the “real judiciary.” Fine, it looks simple, but this means plaintiffs like Qazi Hussain Ahmed can take the President’s election case back to the “real judiciary”, which was sacked by him. The government has taken care of such an eventuality by quickly moving a surrogate review petition and getting an equally quick dismissal. And Imran Khan can ask for a review of the court order which has accepted the legality of the NRO. What would be the political implications of this: both Zardari and Musharraf would be thrown on the same side, if decision comes against their wishes. One view is that even these particular judgments can be condoned in the spirit of the national reconciliation between various pillars of the government and by invoking doctrine of de facto.

 

Second, what would be the fate of the present judges who took oath after 3/11? Simplistic answer would be chucking them out. But many politicians and lawyers feel that instead of straight forward dismissal, their cases should be considered on category basis.

Category A: Those judges who were part of the previous bench, one retired Supreme Court judge said, should go back to their respective previous positions. Another view is that they had violated the 3^rd November interim order, which declared the Emergency unconstitutional. Hence their cases should be referred to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on charges of misconduct. SJC should then take a lenient view by just reprimanding them instead of recommending their dismissal.

 

There are also some newly alleviated judges to the Supreme Court who had retired previously from the superior courts. These gentlemen, all agree, should be relieved.

 

Category B: Those judges who were alleviated from the judicial ranks. Even these judges some lawyers say should be accommodated as junior judges because they had no choice but to accept the alleviation. Other solution is that they should pass through the process of normal selection procedures and if found fit should be alleviated or sent back to their previous positions.

 

Category C: Those judges who were lawyers and jumped to join the bandwagon taking advantage of the situation. Most senior lawyers and retired judges I have talked to feel that they will have to go home and go through the selection system as laid down in the book.

 

Top leaders of the new coalition privately agree that most crucial issue of this imbroglio is that the President is not going to go away in the near future given the existing balance of power. And he does not want to co-exist with the CJP Iftikhar Chaudhry. So of the two mighty gentlemen, who would rise to the occasion and show he cares for the people of Pakistan? It’s a tough question. My suggestion would be that the CJP should be restored to his due position and once his stand is vindicated he should proceed on leave to let the situation cool down. The country has suffered a lot in the last one year because of this conflict between the judiciary and executive. The new government should then nominate the CJP with his blessing for some highly respected international posting. Whether the President would bow out in the same spirit it’s hard to say. If he does he would be the great beneficiary as he may go out when a segment of population still likes him. Picking up the right time for an exit needs the right vision and acceptance of the fact that nobody is indispensable in this mortal world.

The fatigued people of Pakistan are looking to their political leadership, lawyers leading judiciary movement and the civil-military establishment for mental and physical peace. Please listen to the sound of the tension and cracking nerves! (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

Rising Terrorism

Unabated wave of terrorist incidents, which have killed over 200 innocent fellow countrymen in this year alone, has once again brought the issue of terrorism to the forefront. While electronic media has taken a lead by initiating the debate on this sizzling issue, the politicians are just stuck with the judiciary tangle.

 

Simplistic solutions are being presented by some popular talk show hosts and a number of politicians. An easy and populist line is just to blame the government for towing the American ‘war on terror.’  There is little appreciation that one cannot walk away by just blaming the US and its allies for dividing our society into those who believe in radical Islam and moderate Islam. This is a clash of ideologies within Muslim societies.

 

On one side is ‘Fundamentalism’ and on the other, moderate Islam. Fundamentalism is also a foundation of the Radical Islamic movement. It is well explained by Prof. Peter van de Veer of University of Amsterdam in his paper published by South Asian Policy Analysis: “Fundamentalism is a social phenomenon that occurs during rapid social change, is marked by a profound experience in crises by revitalization of religion and a search for authenticity. Fundamentalism is a global phenomenon in so far it is a response to global transformation.”

 

Now this explains the wave of fundamentalism in almost all the religions of the world. Globalisation, spurred by information explosion, is building new global values, culture and economic relations. All this is sweeping away the old way of life. People who feel threatened and want to resist change always invoke the fundamentals and fight back. We have seen this in the past: for example when the industrial revolution started; we are witnessing the reaction today not only in monotheist religions but also in pluralistic Hinduism.

 

Islamic fundamentalism and the Islamic militant movement in Pakistan and globally should not be studied in isolation as a theological issue only. It has to be studied in the light of social, political and economic environment of our society and our geo-strategic condition. In the post-USSR period the have-nots are living in an ideology vacuum. Even the liberation movements like that of Palestine which used to draw strength from socialist ideology has drifted towards the Islamic alternative being offered by organisations like Hamas.

 

Dr. Iftikhar Malik, who teaches at Bath Spa University in the UK has described, “This kind of political Islam promises the return of the lost glory; stipulates holistic answers to socio-economic stratification; and is mostly subscribed by under-privileged whose unfulfilled mundane needs and desires converge with a yearning of a collective comeback.” The trouble is that this is a mirage. So far we have not seen any success story, whether it is Shia Iran, Wahabi Saudi Arabia or Taliban’s Afghanistan.  

 

Unless we understand this phenomenon with its domestic and international perspective, the issue cannot be resolved. Most politicians who appear on the television channels are looking at this issue as a reaction to Musharraf and US doings.

 

There is a general consensus that we should talk with terrorists. But the issue is who do we talk to? Without deciding what we want from them and what can we give them on the table? Let’s see who are the people promoting terrorism in the country. First and most lethal is Al Qaeda and a number of its franchisee Jihadi groups. What are their major demands?

 

1.   Pakistan should not support the Western policy in Afghanistan.

2.   Pakistan should not stop Taliban from using it as hinterland for their war against Afghanistan government and its Western supporters.

3.   Pakistan should not stop its people from joining Jihadi groups, getting trained and participating in the Jihad declared by Al Qaeda and its associates against all such governments which falls in the category of Jahiliyya. (See Sayyid Qutb’s Signpost and Zawahiri’s speeches).

4.   Pakistan should support all Muslim militant groups Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and Jaish Mohammadi’s who fight in India.

5.   Pakistan should let the local Taliban enforce their version of Salafist Islam in the country. (Mullah Fazlullah and Aziz’s edicts)

 

Recent elections have shown that the verdict of people of Pakistan is against this agenda. Any sane elected government would not have much to offer to these terrorists. None of these demands are in the interest of the people of Pakistan. By letting Afghanistan and Pakistan becoming a haven for Al Qaeda and other militant Islamic groups to launch a global Jihad, we can only destroy ourselves economically and militarily. The poor people whose interest these politicians and anchor people talk about would be the first to suffer the economic crunch. Governments cannot afford idealistic principled stand, the only principle they should follow is what is good for the people.  

 

The militants are welcome to join the mainstream politics and preach their version of Islam peacefully. They cannot be allowed to enforce their way of life on the majority by intimidating people by blowing video and barber shops.

 

I am amazed at the short-term memory of the people who blame the government for breaking the accord in Wazirstan under US pressure. No doubt US pressure was there. But we should remember that after the accord local Taliban force emerged and started forcing people in FATA and in settled areas to change their way of life. At the same time they did not honour the agreement that they will not provide safe haven to local and foreign Taliban in Wazirstan.

 

No government can strike an appeasement deal with them. Any such move would strengthen the extremist who are spread all over the country. We have seen this in Islamabad and Swat, where a long drawn appeasement policy did not work. The only way forward is to isolate them from the people. To achieve this objective the government and people of Pakistan will have to vigorously counter the dangerous ideology of these fundamentalists. They have strong hold on the madrassas, where young minds are influenced and prepared for suicide bombing. (Excellent book ‘A-Z of Jihadi Organisations in Pakistan’ was written by Amir Rana in 2004 on this subject. Politicians and anchormen should also read Khaled Ahmed’s paper published by SAPNA to understand what we are faced with).

 

New government should merge FATA areas in NWFP as suggested by many politicians of this province including some newly elected MNAs from this region.  It might create some ripples in Afghanistan as is linked with Durand Line issue. They can be told off that if they want us to handle the Taliban safe haven issue, we will do it our way. It is an opportune moment as Afghanistan cannot do anything but give a few statements.

 

Modern education should be provided to children giving them better facilities than madrassas. On the national level poverty alleviation and inequality should be dealt with on a war footing as unemployed youth is also lured in by the Jihadists.

 

One time general amnesty should be given and all those who are involved in these organisations should be asked to disband their militant wings. Offer them to join the mainstream. And thereafter if they still violate the writ of the government, as given in the constitution, fight it out with people’s support. A small militant minority should not be supported by the media and politicians to jeopardise the whole nation’s future just because we do not like Musharraf’s or Bush’s policies.  Please think positively and not reactionary. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

Reconsiliation Review

Benazir Bhutto’s last book ‘Reconciliation – Islam, Democracy and the West’ is actually her political will. I am not sure whether Asif and other PPP leaders would be able to rise to the challenge. As this will is actually her political vision. It is quite evident to the reader of her book that she had the vision to reconcile the present gulf between Islam and the West, starting from Pakistan. Her eyes were set not only on Pakistan, but on the Muslim Countries leadership. A tall order, but then, she was courageous and believed in taking challenges. She proved this by giving her life in fight against extremism.

 

Essentially Benazir Bhutto has taken a position in the ongoing debate on Islam, democracy and the West. She has also joined the discourse initiated by Samuel Huntington’s notorious Clash of Civilisation theory. She says ‘clearly I am a reconciliationist’ as against the ‘clashers.’ The ‘clasher,’ she has maintained, are those ‘who believe in the inevitability of the conflict’ between Civilisations. This serious polemics is interspersed with her political experience as an opposition leader; two-time prime minister; pride in her family’s contribution; and “The Path Back’ to Pakistan after a long self-exile, which was of course laden with a threat to her life.

 

Let’s first take a peep in the chapters which, it seems, are based on the papers she had presented at various universities and institutions during her stay abroad. Naturally the audience of these chapters is the Westerners. She believed West is misled by theories like clash of civilisation and by some of the scholars who have neither understood Islam, nor the developments in Muslim societies.

 

In her chapter ‘The Battle with Islam: Democracy Versus Dictatorship, Moderation Versus Extremism’ first thing that strikes a reader is that she was a devout Muslim who wanted to defend her faith against the perception in the West. Much of this perception is the result of 9/11. She has taken notice of this: “Al Qaeda desperately tried to provoke the notorious clash of civilisations that has been prophesized years before.”

 

She supports her discussion on issues like Jihad, pluralism, choice of religion, women’s rights, suicide and terrorism with extensive references from modern theological debate and quotations from Quran and Ahadis. Impressively she has kept herself abreast about the contemporary debate between Muslim and non-Muslim scholars in spite of her political and maternal engagements. But in pursuit to find her answers in theology she has treaded the path where both Muslim scholars and the secularist would be able to find many pitfalls in her argument.

 

For instance as she was presenting it to the West, she has laid emphasis on the tolerance in Islam for Judaism and Christianity. This tolerance is for monotheist religions provided they accept the superiority of the Muslim and pay special protection tax, while idolaters are to be slain by the Muslims. In today’s world this is against the spirit of democracy. Similarly her argument that Islam gives a person choice of religion is against the reality, as a born or a converted Muslim cannot leave Islam.

 

Similarly her argument on Jihad is weak as the issue is who would decide about what is a just war and unjust war. The Ulema who give fatwas believe Taliban and Iraqis are fighting a just war, as they are defending their homeland against foreign aggression. Al Qaeda believes killing the Western civilians and their supporters in the Muslim countries is part of a just Jihad. The US government doesn’t call it a Jihad but is fighting in Iraq, thousands of miles away from their homeland calling it a just war for democracy. So the whole issue has to be decided in the framework of international law in these days, segregating it from religious edict. Otherwise there would be no peace.

 

Next Benazir has forcefully and adequately destroyed edifice of “(What) Conventional wisdom would have us believe that democracy has failed to develop in the Muslim world because of Islam itself.” In her chapter on ‘Islam and Democracy: History and Practice,” she has given examples of a number of Muslim countries where democratic process was sabotaged by the West itself. Her basic argument is that much of the problem in the Muslim countries has been because of distortions caused by the colonial rule and interference. She rightly believes and endorses the argument that “freedom and liberty are universal values that can be applied across cultures, societies, religions, ethnic groups and individual national experience. Democracy is not inherently Western value; it is a universal value.”

 

I would like to first move to the 5^th Chapter on “Is the Clash of Civilisation Inevitable?” We shall deal with the 4^th chapter which is on “The Case of Pakistan” later, as I think the Editor of the book has not sequenced the chapters logically. Benazir Bhutto has debunked the theory of class of civilisation. She has traced back this half-baked proposition to Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West. Like a research scholar she has studied important debate on this issue closely and refuted it. She has pointed out: “It is the value of tolerance that will be the deciding factor between the forces of extremism and forces of moderation, between the forces of dictatorship and the forces of democracy …. Between inflexible traditionalism and adaptable modernity. In other words, the real clash within and outside Islam is a battle between the past and the future. She feels that globalisation may be the most fundamental element of conflict resolution.”

 

In the concluding chapter ‘Reconciliation’ she emerges as a leader who has global issues understanding. She gives her vision for the Muslim countries, Pakistan included,” Her recipe includes: building of middle classes to strengthen democracy, raising level of education, women empowerment, banning militant madrassas, inculcating tolerance with the help of reformist thinkers of Islam, promoting micro-financing, involving civil society in developmental work, setting up investment funds like Alaska Permanent Fund and Norway Pension Fund, a fund on the pattern of Marshal Fund to support the Muslim countries as “the west must acknowledge the residual damage of colonialism.”

 

 

Now coming back to what she has written about Pakistan in this book is mostly known to the readers because she had dealt with these issues in speeches. But just a few points need to be mentioned. Those who had doubts about the will of BB in which she appointed Asif as Chairman of the party and those who used to say that the relations between them strained would be disappointed. She has referred to him quite lovingly and acknowledged his support and her love for him, though subtly.

However she has been somewhat pompous about her family’s contribution and has shied away from admitting PPP’s mistakes since it was founded. Her party has now apologised for excesses by the Central government in Balochistan, but BB did not show any regret for launching a Military operation in the 1970s. Similarly, she has tried to justify PPP’s stand in Bangladesh. On restoration of judiciary she has been evasive. A couple of historical inaccuracies have crept in when she has dealt with issues which her party had faltered.

 

She has blamed the West and Army for not letting democracy flourish in Pakistan. BB’s vision was to steer Pakistan out from dictatorship through a reconciliatory process instead of a clash. Many drawing room critics opposed this reconciliatory policy. But if they will read her book they will realise that she had bigger domestic and international challenges on her mind and had belief that this is no time for a clash. The way forward spelt by her is reconciliation and moving ahead step by step. So far it seems Asif has towed his better-half’s line. He accepted this with grace that she was indeed the better-half in this male chauvinistic world.

 

The book has been published hurriedly by Simon and Schuster perhaps because BB’s assassination made it a hot item. But this resulted in editing lapses like repetition of some incidences.  The publisher is the same who had the good fortune of publishing ‘In the Line of Fire’ by President Musharraf. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

 

Have Patients

No democracy was built in a day. It takes generations to develop a democratic polity. And democratic behaviour and way of thinking takes even longer; may be many generations. The good news is that the information and knowledge revolutions of the last few decades have hastened the process.

 

Thus to my journalist and civil society friends I say that we should be patient with democracy and not push PPP and PML (N) into confrontation even before they have settled in. We have been pretty impatient in the past with each elected government and killing democratic dispensation in infancy. We blame democracy for being noisy, wetting the bed and giving us sleepless nights. Please study how various democracies, we idealise, have been nurtured patiently to have a right perspective.

 

People of Pakistan have voted against President Musharraf’s government. It would be deceiving oneself if we say that the vote is against the group of politicians who labeled themselves as PML-Q. So it cannot be said that the vote is against Shaukat Aziz and Shujaat Hussain. They were just serving the one-man rule. Although under the constitution we are supposed to be a parliamentary system, it was run as a presidential system. The prime ministers who served us in the last eight years were just de-jure chief executives of the country and not de-facto. This reality was accepted by the world and hence they always emphasized on calling it and treating it as President Musharraf’s government. His strength was not the public support or vote, but backing by the military. No major decision was taken by the parliament in the last eight years, they just rubber stamped whatever had the blessing of the President.

 

 

Now the recent polls have shown that the people of Pakistan want a change. Before Barack Obama ‘change’ in US (if he makes it to the presidency) people here have voted for a change. They want a government with a sovereign parliament and a real chief executive just as envisaged in the Constitution of Pakistan. There is growing realisation in the political and opinion-makers of Pakistan that most of the political problems can be solved if the 1973 constitution is followed. Of course minus those amendments which the dictators have injected to justify there unconstitutional rule or which gives them undeterred powers.

 

But strangely the US government is reading this writing on the wall. According to various reports in the media they are still trying to push the newly elected PPP and PML (N) leadership to share the power with President Musharraf. Yes the reality of last 8 years was that the President was all powerful mainly by virtue of being the Chief of Army Staff and he had managed to bring in a kings party in the government through 2002 one-sided elections.

 

What the US administration is not realising is that the ground situation has changed thanks to the sensible voting by the people. First the lawyers and people’s movement forced the general to leave the army, which was his power base. Then they have voted his supporters out of the new parliament. Agreed that some credit should also be given to the US and other Western countries for pushing General Musharraf to shed his uniform and hold elections.

 

US wished that Pakistan should elect the moderate and liberal forces. The whole purpose of this policy was to gain people’s support for war against extremists, which was missing in the previous set up. Their wish has come true. It seems that they are now apprehensive that the elected government may not carry on their war against Taliban and Al-Qaeda with the same vigour as was done by President Musharraf. Repeated statements by the US administration that they want to work with Musharraf and that he has a role to play show they are getting jittery.

 

What the US administration fails to appreciate that had the people of Pakistan not realised that terrorism and Talibanisation are national problems, they would not have voted for parties left of centre. True PML (N) does not fall in this league, but it is also clear that terrorism was one of the most important problems of the country. It is our national agenda, so please lay off and let the people of Pakistan manage it their way. Any elected government will have to find a political solution to the problem while keeping the military pressure on the Taliban and their allies in Pakistan. There are no two ways, as we need to carry our people’s support in this war. The US support should be in line what we want and should not be forced down our throat. US should also understand the fact that any popularly elected government would also like to snatch back its legitimate share in power from the President and limit him to his due position. By meddling too much in our domestic affairs they are further raising people’s aversion against them and thus damaging the long term US interest in Pakistan. To win people’s heart and soul you have to be a friend not master. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

Challenges ahead for the political government

One of the bloodiest elections is over. Unfortunately all my apprehensions that wanton violence may take many lives this time in the run up to elections have come true. It pains to see such forecasts proving right.

 

Now that it is behind us, what lies ahead for the forthcoming government is a rough ride. They will have to face political, economic, internal security and foreign policy challenges of no ordinary nature. Will they come up to the expectations of the wretched nation and steer them out of crises? I dread even to look at the negative reply.

 

First political challenge before the political parties would be whether to accept the election results or go in for a movement against the rigging. I think if the results are not too far off of the predictions made by independent surveys and journalists, the political parties will accept even though under protest.

 

Second challenge is how to cobble a coalition to the satisfaction of all the partners. The good sign is that PPP, which is the favourite bet of the political pundits, is talking about a national reconciliation government. It is a right approach set by Ms Bhutto, who had the vision and sagacity to understand Pakistan’s serious internal and external problems. This is no time for one party to take a heavy burden of solving the problems single-handedly. We have seen that President’s efforts to do it alone have failed. A national consensus is imperative, there is no other alternative.

 

Third challenge is how to strike a balanced relation with President Musharraf. If one would go by the tattered rule book, called Constitution, there should be no problem. But after having run the country almost like a Presidential form of government for 8 years, it is unlikely that the President will accept to limit himself to the constitutional role only. The parliamentary constitution of Pakistan leaves all policy making and management to the Parliament and the Prime Minister. What is feared is that the new government would run into a conflict with the President in the near future over the issue of political space. It would be at that stage that once again it would become important on whose side the army is. If it decides to keep itself detached from politics keeping in line with the present thrust, the country would pass this hurdle. Otherwise we would be in for another unstable period. And the blood of all the martyrs of democracy would go wasted.

 

Fourth challenge is how to handle the issue of restoring the judiciary to its rightful place. Independent judiciary is one of the three pillars of state. The President may oppose the restoration of judges who were ousted by him. But the new government would not be able to sacrifice this issue for the sake of better relations with him. If it would take this opportunist course it will have to face the lawyers and civil society movement at the very outset. Nobody likes to start the inning on the wrong foot and with a hostile audience.

 

Fifth challenge would be how to manage the economic difficulties such as high priced food items, inflation and energy crisis. Much of these problems are imported as the prices of oil and food items have risen drastically internationally. While the people have become somewhat understanding about the linkage of local fuel prices with international market, they are not willing to accept the food prices hike on these grounds. As far as the energy shortage is concerned it is mainly mismanagement by the government, which failed to remove the bureaucratic red tapism. However, if the PPP power policy which was very successful in the nineties is brought back we may see quicker resolution of this problem. On the whole the Musharraf government can take credit to pass on the economy in a better shape to the new dispensation, than what it inherited.

 

Sixth challenge is regarding the most serious issue of internal security which is also directly related with our foreign policy. Here again it seems that the President may like to keep all important decisions between him and the GHQ. Historically all important foreign policy issues related to India, Afghanistan, Iran and the USA are decided by the GHQ. Political governments have tried to claim their rightful place, but we have seen that they were shown the door whenever they were out of step with the establishment.  

 

But now the country has come to a foreign policy impasse. Without the broad support of the political forces it would not be possible to tackle the pressing issue of Afghanistan and US policy. The need is to take the people of Pakistan along with the policy that the country cannot afford to interfere in the affairs of Afghanistan. And to do that the covert and overt official and unofficial support to Afghan Taliban has to be stopped. We have to take a neutral position and tell the American’s; sorry you deal with this issue directly with Kabul.

 

Agreed it is easier said then done. Pakistan is badly entangled in this mess. The issue is now closely linked with the issue of Jihadists turned local Taliban. This brings us to the seventh challenge. Sixty years of nurturing Jihadists to achieve the misperceived Pakistan foreign & defence policy objectives has to be called off. We have seen that half-hearted attempts in this direction have turned these Jihadists against the people of Pakistan. Last year over 3500 people lost their lives in terrorists’ activities by these people, including the country’s ablest leader Ms. Benazir Bhutto. There were over 60 suicide attacks in the country. To put this dangerous genie back in the bottle is no small challenge. And this cannot be achieved without the help of all major political parties who believe in democracy and peace.

 

Eighth challenge is relations with India. President Musharraf can once again take the credit to break away from the traditional policy. His initiatives have been bold and though slow but relations have moved towards normalisation. The big issue can be sorted out with the Indian government by the national government with the support of the military.

 

And the ninth challenge is deciding the issue of provincial autonomy for good. In spite of having dictatorial powers President Musharraf’s government has not been able to solve this issue. As a matter of fact Balochistan displeasure with the federation became worst, National Finance Commission Award and Water Distribution Accord could not be finalized by his government and these burning issues were postponed.

 

All these are serious challenges. No government can solve these problems overnight. But a beginning has to be made and people should be informed that patients and national consensus is necessary. And above all the President should give new dispensation their constitutional space. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

Independent judiciary a safeguard against 58 2 (b)

Three views have recently come up on the issue of restoration of judiciary. First, the President said that this would need two-third majority of the parliament. Second, observed by US Under-Secretary of State that the President may dissolve the newly elected parliament if it would try to restore the judges. And third, maintained by all former judges and leading constitutional lawyers that judges can be restored through an executive order.

 

   But before examining which of the three views can hold its ground, let’s examine what would be the shape of things in the near future after the elections. Political pundit’s forecast is that if the elections are free and fair the future government would be formed by a PPP-led coalition. Other possible partners of this coalition could be PML (N), MQM, ANP and perhaps JUI. But some friends say the American and President script has put PML (Q) as the junior partner in this coalition and not unbending PML (N).

 

There are two major hurdles which may cause problems in the way of cobbling this coalition. Both are expected to come from Nawaz Sharif. He has kept the restoration of judges’ issue on the top of the agenda and other major political parties like PPP, MQM, JUI, ANP and PML (Q) are pussy-footing this issue. And, he insists that he will not join any government under Musharraf.

 

Major political parties, with the exception of PML (N) and JI, are not taking the issue of independence of judiciary seriously. Of the two exceptions only PML (N) is in a position to push other political parties to take up the issue of restoration of judges who fell victim to the 3/11 Emergency. If he will stick to his just stand, PPP will have to come around, even though reluctantly. It will also depend on the number of seats PPP and PML (N) get.

 

Nawaz Sharif has been a beneficiary of independent judiciary twice. First, when his government was ousted by the scheming President Ghulam Ishaq Khan, the court restored him. He had to eventually resign because of the pressure of the junta. And the second time it was the court which upheld his and Shahbaz Sharifs inalienable right to return to Pakistan.

 

Being a leader of the urban Punjab, he has also gauged the mood of his constituency well. The lawyers are perhaps the most important opinion makers in the urban Punjab and their movement for independence of judiciary has left no doubt where their heart is. His critics are not willing to forgive him for storming the Supreme Court when he was in power. Criticism is right, but everybody should be given a chance to learn from his follies and improve.

 

Political pundits and bookies’ favourite PPP (which according to one guesstimate would bag around 100 seats from Punjab and Sindh) has been skirting around the judges restoration so far. Whenever its senior leaders are asked a direct question they are found artfully bridging it to give a non-committal message.

 

Most analysts feel that PPP does not want to commit on this issue for fears that: Restoration means annoying the Americans who have been misled to believe that the independent judiciary was coming in the way of tackling the terrorists; Restoration means that the Supreme Court may strike down the most cherished National Reconciliation Ordinance; And that Restoration means picking up a conflict at the very outset, with the President, who “purged” the judiciary for not conforming to his dictates at the cost of rendering a final blow to his image.

 

To overcome these fears PPP does not need the shrink’s couch. Let’s take the above fears in that order. Fear one, the courts attitude towards missing people did upset the government and the agencies that are pitched against the terrorists. But both the Americans and government should realize that they cannot shift the burden of poor prosecution cases to the judiciary. There is no denying of the fact that the rising tide of terrorism cannot be tackled under the existing legal framework. The long term solution is that the law enforcing agencies should prepare the cases backed by the proficient legal team. Our parliament needs to pass new laws to meet this challenge. Even in some Western countries’ parliaments have come up with the law that a person held on charges of terrorism or abetting it can be held incommunicado for a restricted and reasonable period. Once that law is there the courts will have to work within that framework. But this does not mean that agencies can hold people on this pretext as long as they wish and not account for them. No civilized society can allow this or giving away its own citizens to another country if the accused has not committed a crime on their soil. In civilized democracies there are no short cuts at the cost of human rights of the people.

 

Fear two, almost all parties have been beneficiaries of the NRO, so it would not be difficult for the new parliament to pass a law (perhaps almost unanimously) validating this ordinance. This can be done simultaneously with the restoration of the pre-November PCO judges.

 

Fear three, that President will not like restoration of judges is right, but then you cannot hold a popular and just decision because it will displease one person. The choice is simple, its one person against the will of the nation. Politically this move will not cost the new government much because it will be not be possible for the President to pack them home in the first few weeks. US administration’s assumption that the President will dissolve the newly elected assemblies if judges are restored shows their lack of understanding of Pakistan’s ground realities. The 58 2(b) axe has always been used by the respective presidents when they had the army backing. This time the army is at pain to divest from politics to repair the damage done to its image in the last 8 years.

 

Above all the bonus for the new dispensation will be that only an independent judiciary can protect them from the notorious axe of Article 58 2(b). It clearly provides that “the President may also dissolve the National Assembly in his discretion where … a situation has arisen in which the Government of the Federation cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and an appeal to the electorate is necessary.” (But) “The President in case of dissolution of the National Assembly under paragraph (b) of clause (2) shall, within fifteen days of the dissolution, refer the matter to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court shall decide the reference within thirty days, whose decision shall be final.”

 

It is thus in the interest of the political government to have an independent judiciary where a President backed by the junta can any day dissolve the National Assembly. Political parties should take a long-term view of the issue and recognize the importance of the issue of restoration of judiciary to its pre-November position at the very outset when the new parliament is sworn in.

 

Now back to the constitutional position on restoration of judges. Almost all leading constitutional experts are of the view that restoration of judges can be done through a simple executive order, as the order removing these judges was not passed by the parliament.

 

After facing so much damage to his image ever since he unnecessarily picked a fight with the judges and lawyers, the President should realise that his lawyers are giving him interpretations of law which please him and not the honest legal advice.  

 

The constitution is quite clear that it can be amended by the two-third majority of both the houses and not by a single person. Even the Supreme Court has no power to allow a person to change the constitution. It was because of this constitutional requirement that the Article 270 (A) and 270 (AA) had to be inserted in the Constitution in 1977 and 1999, respectively to validate the deviations from the Constitution after the military take-over by General Zia and General Musharraf. So the presumption that what the present Supreme Court has said regarding the November 2007 emergency validates the action of the COAS and the President is wishful. The Supreme Court cannot give validity to the Emergency PCO. It is because of this they have referred to Zaffar Ali Shah and Begum Bhutto cases in judgement. In both cases it was maintained that changes in laws were valid only for the deviation period. This necessitated the amendments in the constitution once the parliaments were sworn in 1985 and 2002.

 

Mr. President some lawyers will always tell you that your case is strong, because pleasing the clients is their bread and butter. Only few honorable lawyers have the honesty to tell their clients, sorry you have no case, even if the judiciary is amiable. Now the choice is yours who would you like to trust in these crucial times. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

Judiciary Issues

Lawyer’s movement for the independence of judiciary has entered a new phase. Interestingly the division among lawyers at present is regarding the tactics of continuing the struggle. While Sindh and Punjab are for partial strike, NWFP and Balochistan are for the continuation of complete boycott of PCO judges.

 

Most of the leadership feels that the time has come to slow down the movement, as not much success is possible before the upcoming elections. A Number of factors have pushed the leaders to end the boycott of the PCO judges and opt for partial strike. Major reasons are the litigants’ pressure that their cases should be followed up, financial strain on lawyers who do not have much savings and the realisation that the restoration of judges is now only possible through the new parliament. This means if elections are held on 18^th February the parliament would settle in somewhere in early March. There is a looming fear that the political parties may ditch them once elected to compromise with the President.

 

Former Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Munir Malik, who spearheaded the lawyer’s movement, said: “I think the ball is now in the parliament’s court.” In an interview taken by me for the Asian Human Rights Commission he explained that “historically, a usurper has sought parliamentary indemnity for the acts done during the period of deviation. Now we can’t go before the present SC and expect restoration of judges. In fact they’ve already ruled that the 3^rd November PCO amendments are a valid part of the constitution and they will not require any further parliamentary approval. And they have shifted the onus on parliament, that to undo it you have to repeal it by a 2/3 majority.”

 

So this war will now be in the new parliament or in the streets. On the streets it’s supposed to be run by the lawyers and political leadership. I asked him does that mean if political parties don’t get 2/3 majority they can’t change the court ruling that actions taken under emergency do not need parliament? Munir Malik had another solution to offer: “No sir, let’s take this scenario, supposing PPP gets a simple majority, forms the government and the speaker asks to lay the constitution of Pakistan before the house, which one will they present, one with the amendments, or the one which was before Musharraf took over?

 

This issue had also come in 2002 when the previous National Assembly speaker Illahi Baksh Soomro sat to swear- in the members he asked for the 1973 Constitution for administering the oath. So if this tactics is repeated some lawyers think November PCO would automatically become void.

 

Most political party leaders and civil society representatives agree that the chances of restoration of the Chief Justice of Pakistan will not be acceptable to President Musharraf. If this issue is pushed hard at the very outset, newly elected parliament will have to encounter his resistance. Political Pundits say that the middle course could be that the judges are restored with the tacit understanding that CJP will resign once his position is vindicated in the interest of learned brothers and conflict resolution.

 

Superior courts judges who suffered from the 3/11 emergency ambush are also faced with personal predicament. At the one hand legal fraternity is hopeful that their struggle would be successful eventually. Thus they want the ousted judges to stick to their stand that they are legal judges and their removal was unlawful. On the other hand the flip side of this stand is that they cannot claim their pension and retirement benefits because they claim they are still the judges. Also they cannot take up legal practice. Prolonged limbo will make it difficult for some judges to even pay their rents, as at present they have no source of income.

 

One view is that 3/11 gains were not consolidated by the legal fraternity and loves labour was lost.  Certain political issues like Presidential elections and missing people for were brought the court. The courts had no choice but to do the needful.

 

Munir Malik’s opinion is that “the momentum of the events was such that if the courts did not make an attempt to address them, then it would have become the old Supreme Court and that was not an idea worth fighting for. This was a catch-22, if the judiciary did nothing its public image would have eroded giving an impression that this was a fight only for the CJ and not for the independence of the judiciary, not to preserve the institution. Then the judiciary would again have become weak. So the level of expectation from the masses, the legal fraternity and the civil society was such that there was no turning back without eroding the judiciary’s credibility and once it was eroded, the establishment would have attacked again.”

 

In any case the executive did attack and brought us back to square one, pushing the judiciary in a worst position than it was even before 9^th March.

 

Wretched people of Pakistan will have to fight once again to retrieve the constitutional powers of the judiciary from the hands of the all powerful executive. The goal is far. But we did it once and we can do it again led by the Black Coats. (ayazbabar@gmail.com) 

BB’s Killing

Some other now must tend the garden of sacrifice;

The dew these eyes of mine have shed, friends, is used up,

The passionate faith is stilled; the hail of stones is over.

 

Dust underfoot today is the hue of the loved one’s lips,

In her dear street is unfurled the pennant of my blood,

To whom, whom will the summons come, now I am gone –

Who dares the challenge now of the deadly wine of love?

Again and again, now I am gone, this cry on the lips of her who pours, (Faiz translated by Victor Kiernan)

 

Benazir Bhutto is dead and now the big question in the political leadership void in Pakistan is: “whom will the summons come …. Who dares the challenge now of the deadly wine of love? The grieved nation is looking for the answer through tearful murky eyes.

 

The greater tragedy is that no other leader of this blighted country has countrywide support, from the snowcapped mountains of Karakoram to the seashores of Karachi and Balochistan. With all her past follies, it is accepted even by her foes that she led a party which is an adhesive to keep the Federation of Pakistan. It is also that her understanding of domestic and international politics was far better than her political peers.

 

Most importantly, I think she was the only popular leader of the country (President Musharraf does not fall in her league) who understood that the fundamental contradiction of the Muslim polities is between the forces of modernity, liberalism, democracy and the fascist militant Islamic forces. In fact it is not only the issue of Muslim societies, the Christian, Jews and Hindu societies are also seeing vehement and violent resistance to the flood of globalised secular culture and values. The traditionalists and those who fear change are fighting everywhere to insulate their societies from the liberal democratic value system. The information flow and global interaction is now cutting through all national, ethnic and religious boundaries.

 

It is the fear of being swept away by the changing relations of production, that heralds changed social relations and pattern of thinking. It is the challenge posed by scientific rational thinking that has made extremists of all major religions in the world to come out vigorously against the rationality. It is this fear that has made these forces intolerant and noisy. It is this inevitable progress of mankind that is being resisted by the likes of Al-Qaeda in Muslim societies, by BJP and Hindutva in India, by evangelists in America and by hard core Jews in Israel.

 

Those who undermine the importance of this political formulation have lots of disconnected arguments. They blamed Benazir Bhutto for supporting an American agenda when she boldly said: “We can sacrifice our lives but not the future of children to the militants.” They brushed aside this as an American agenda to polarize the Muslim societies.

 

Sweeping statements that this not an issue of the poor people of Pakistan and it is raised by the westernized elite is lack of understanding of the ecology of development. A society cannot prosper economically if it is dragged back to undemocratic medieval political and social system. The instability created by militancy is already taking a toll and the economic progress has slowed down. This in turn hurts the people on the lowest rung of the income ladder as they are the first one to fall back below the poverty line.

 

The issue is can any country now afford not to challenge religious extremism? Nobody grudges the right of the religious parties who believe in propagating remaining within the democratic norms, but it was the fascist and violent means of subjugating the people that has to be resisted. And Benazir Bhutto was the only national leader who had the courage to rise to the call of history on her own soil. She was in a position to provide people’s support to this cause, which Musharraf had tried to fight without any political backing. On the contrary all through he was sleeping with the politicians who support the obscurantist. To add further to his misery he isolated himself by picking a fight with the judiciary and civil society. Today he is extremely unpopular and his behaviour is that of a baffled man sans reason.

 

Perplexed people of Pakistan are once again asking what next? What is the hope to come out of the present turmoil? Should elections be held on time or postponed? Who will now lead PPP? And so on and so forth. Perhaps the most probable solution is that the elections are postponed with the consensus of all particularly PPP for a month, not more than that. A truly national government should be formed with all major political parties to supervise the elections. Pre-November 3 Judiciary is restored and an undisputed person like Justice Rana Bhagwandas is appointed as Election Commissioner. If President Musharraf cannot swallow this bitter pill he should resign as he hinted that he might if things turn out not to his liking. This is the least he can do for this unfortunate country to allow national reconciliation.

 

On the part of PPP it should evolve a collective leadership giving representation to all provinces, as no individual would be able to keep it intact. Unfortunately one weakness of BB was that she never allowed other leaders to grow under her shadow. Any other attempt would eventually weaken the party and may eventually lead to split into difference factions.

Benazir Bhutto’s death has left a wounded nation bleeding profusely and scores of people dead. I can only leave you with a prayer by Faiz again:

 

Come let us also raise our hands to pray,

We who have forgotten how,

We who have no god, no idol,

Only love, come let us ask life

To infuse the sweetness of tomorrow

In the gloom of today,

To lessen the burden of days and nights

For those who have no strength to bear it,

To light a lamp in the darkness

Of eyes that cannot hope to see

The face of dawn.

Come let us ask life

To show a way out to those who are lost

On endless streets;

To give the courage of heresy and the desire for truth

To those who follow the religion of lies and hypocrisy;

To give strength to those whose heads are bowed in fear,

So they can break the murderer’s grip.

Love’s hidden secret is the fevered soul.

Let us make a pact and slake this fever.

Let us accept the true word

Throbbing in our hearts

(Translation: Mahmud Jamal)

(ayazbabar@gmail.com)