By Babar Ayaz

Pinning the responsibility of writing the much-talked about ‘Memo’ on Husain Haqqani means implicating President Asif Zardari. The Justice Faez Isa commission is trying to investigate ‘a conspiracy’ which is supposedly damaging for the country. All the focus of the ultra-nationalist politicians and media is that the alleged ‘Memo’ had promised the US administration a pro-US policy national security set-up by replacing the present COAS and DG ISI.

Initially it seems that the DG ISI jumped on the opportunity to get rid of Husain Haqqani who had exposed the nexus between the mosque and the military. But in this enthusiasm a finer point which is crucial for the Pakistan army was overlooked inadvertently or deliberately. If the commission, which has been formed on Mian Nawaz Sharif’s petition by our active judiciary, comes to the conclusion that the moving fingers that wrote the ‘Memo’ were that of scheming Zardari and his man on the spot Haqqani, one thing is proved that the civilian government of Pakistan is announcing officially to the US that the armed forces of Pakistan are not under their control.

The immediate consequence of this would be equally damaging for Pakistan’s military perhaps more than the civilian government. The ‘Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act 2009’ passed by the US Congress popularly known as the Kerry-Lugar bill clearly states in “Title II—Security Assistance for Pakistan” that military or security aid is linked by the US with not only strengthening the democratic institutions, but also with the establishment of the supremacy of the civilian government over the military establishment. (Emphasis added).

Remember this clause was resented by the Khakis and their co-evolutionists when the Act was passed. This is where the US was blamed for being intrusive because it changes the power structure which has been there for over 50 years in Pakistan. As long as all the loans and aid were given for the military with strings it was acceptable with a meek opposition.  But when the military aid is linked with the certification that democratic government enjoys its due constitutional position or not, it’s blasphemy. Come on wake up democrats!

So our wise strategists at the GHQ and their camp-followers in the foreign office must now be worried about Justice Isa commission’s findings. Perhaps they never wanted to stretch the Memo issue this far. They got the scalp of Haqqani and had put the government at the back foot — that was enough. But then Mian Sahib spoiled the game which was meant to be between the two teams – the military and the civilian set up.

So the real problem would be that if the commission declares that the government was involved in writing the Memo, it would be extremely difficult for the US State Department to convince the Congress Appropriation Committee that there is civilian supremacy over the military establishment in Pakistan. That would eventually lead to the stoppage of $1.5 billion annual goodies for boys in the Khakis. Hence it is good if flamboyant Mansoor Ijaz does not come to Pakistan. In the absence of the prime accuser (not witness) there is no way that Haqqani and through him President Zardari can be held responsible. This suits all, the GHQ, the civilian government and perhaps the US administration also which in any case wants to patch up with our military establishment after killing our jawans in NATO incursions. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

By Babar Ayaz

“The future rarely turns out as predicted. The reason is that most predictions are driven by the same conventional wisdom that drives the daily consensus around us, and are usually based on the big, easily spotted observations like the spread of the global economy. But as you dig deeper, you see a world teeming with lesser-known, harder-to-spot developments that really are the small forces that will drive tomorrow’s big changes.” micro trends – the small forces behind tomorrow’s big changes by Mark J. Penn  with E. Kinney Zalesne

Yes it is perhaps the time to take notice of the ‘small forces that will drive tomorrow’s big changes, in the social and political milieu of Sindh. Such trends were visible in the discourse arranged by the Sindhi Association of North America (SANA) at its second convention in Karachi. SANA is an organisation of Sindhi middle class professionals who have migrated to North America. Some of its leading members are one-time Sindhi nationalists and communists. But the North American exposure has indeed broadened the world view of these Sindhi economic migrants. They do not suffer from xenophobia of many hard-core nationalists who have not been able to grow out of the ‘One-Unit syndrome.’ I remember those of us who used to campaign against one-unit felt robbed when General Yayha Khan announced its dissolution. Similarly, many of the nationalists have been robbed by the PPP-led coalition when 18^th Amendment and 7^th NFC expanded the autonomy given in the constitution. This was the major success of the forces which wanted provinces to have control over their respective natural resources.

    A good trend was set at the SANA convention as a large number of Sindhi intellectuals keenly did some soul-searching. Contrary to the usual Sindhi nationalist meetings harangue, there were more speakers who lamented that Sindhis are being left behind because of lack of meritocracy and good education. Many nationalist leaders who addressed a representative gathering were as usual not happy with the introspection and some of them even lashed at the “NGO-walas who sit in Islamabad and are paid heavy salaries.”

But the dominating trend of Sindhi middle class intellectuals and professionals discourse was that
    Sindhis have to attend to the poor education standards in the province if they want to meet the
    challenges of globalization in the 21^st century. Qaiser Bengali made a startling disclosure that
    Sindh has 49606 schools out of which 85% have one room and one teacher to teach five classes.
   As a result even a class 5 student cannot write his name, leave alone anything else.

   Naseer Memon, a civil society activist, was candid that Sindhi society is rejecting the feudal system
   which is state sponsored. He emphasized on investing in building the Sindhi human resource,
   create space for women, promote argument instead of rhetoric eulogizing the past glory and
   connect civil societies with political parties. Shahab Usto pointed out that there is disconnect
   between the civil society and the poor peasants and workers of Sindh, who are “brutally
   suppressed by the feudal class. Writer Jami Chandio maintained that Sindhi civil society needs to
   construct a common narrative which is for changing the obsolete feudal structure of the society.
  Successful Sindhi businessman Jehangir Siddiqui called for positive thinking and entrepreneurial
  skills to establish more Sindhi businesses. Now this is the changing trend in Sindh’s politics as the
  educated middle classes are moving away from the feudal-led politics and getting out of perennial
  depression. This does not mean that exploitation of Sindh by Pakistan’s ruling establishment for the
  last six decades which slowed down development of Sindhi middle classes can be ignored.

  An anti-feudal movement has also been launched by Ali Kazi, Editor of popular Sindhi newspaper Kawish along with Marvi Memon. Sindhi electronic and print media has been critical of the feudal culture of Sindh and has raised awareness of people on issues related to women’s rights. They have been quite effective in this drive as brutalities in the name of honour and tradition are now exposed by the media.

  Sindhi nationalist parties are agitated that the Sindhi speaking Sindhis vote for PPP which has
  always supported the ‘politics of federation.’ Sindhi nationalists want ‘independence to break the
  chains of slavery.’ And, if that is not possible, as it appears at present, then a confederation
  arrangement with other provinces of Pakistan. They are bewildered that why people vote for PPP
  and not for them. What the nationalists fail to fathom is the fact that voters all over the world have
  an opportunist streak also. They want to vote for the party which can form a government in Karachi
  and Islamabad and not some idealists who are far away from the realpolitik.

  At the end of the day anybody who wants to eliminate poverty and get the Sindhis their due rights
  has to keep in mind that their demands should be keeping the present situation in mind, instead of
  castles built on distant dreams. All said and done the present government has conceded the
  demand for more provincial constitutional and economic autonomy in the 18^th Amendment and 7^th
  National Finance Award. Now the pro-people nationalist priority should be to force the provincial
  government to work for the development of the province, consolidate the gains made through 18^th
  Amendment and 7^th NFC. And above all if they really want the benefits to flow down to the people of
  Sindh then should be asking for maximum devolution of powers to the local governments. They
  should be asking for at least 25% share for the local governments of the districts which are
  producing natural resources. This will automatically change the lives of the people of the backward
  districts like Badin, Thatta, Kandkot and Tharparkar, etc.

  The nationalist parties should now be focusing more on pushing the provincial government to
  exercise its rights as provided in the amended constitution. There is still resistance at the Federal
  level to reverse the gains made by the provinces in the 18^th Amendment and 7^th NFC. There is still
  need to forceful implementation of the provincial autonomy gained by the provinces instead of
  playing old tunes from the anti One-Unit album.

  Another noticeable micro-trend was that Sindhi middle classes are now vociferously emphasising
  that Sindh has secular culture and the majority of the people are anti-Talibanisation. Fire-brand
  Safdar Sarki of Jiay Sindh Mahaz and Jalal Mohammed Shah of Sindh United Party were
  categorical that religion should be kept separate from politics and the country’s foreign policy should
  be to live peacefully in the world community. This led some of the speakers to address the West
  that Sindhi and Baloch nationalists should be supported because they are secular, anti-Taliban and
  want peaceful co-existence with its neighbours.

  Now consider these statements in conjunction with the US State Department’s spokesperson
  expressing concern on the situation in Balochistan while replying to a twitter question. And the
  disclosure in the Foreign Policy magazine that Mossad’s agents are working using the CIA flag in
  Balochistan to checkmate Iran by using some Baloch groups. The US may be raising the voice
  against the atrocities in Balochistan for two reasons: one, they want a friendly force on the borders
  of Iran and they want to send a strong signal to the Pakistani establishment which is playing hard-
  ball with them these days.

  Yet another trend that needs to be studied by economists and sociologists is the fragmentation of
  agriculture land because of expansion of families and modernization of farming. It is pushing a large
  number of rural poor and middle classes to the cities. The cities are bursting with inadequate
  infrastructure. Poor law and order has shied away the industries and services sector investors.
  Consequently unemployment is soaring in Sindh. The new agenda of the Sindhis who care for the
  people should be to force the government to improve law and order, to attract investment without
  any discrimination, to monitor the provincial government’s performance closely. Don’t let them hide
  behind the slogan that the center is eating away the resources. Short term agenda of the people of
  Sindh should be to wage their struggle on two fronts: First, make the provincial government deliver
  education, health, infrastructure and law and order; and second keep the pressure on the federal
  government to implement the provincial autonomy promised in the constitution. Rest is all rhetoric
  full of sound and fury. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

What’s the hurry to get the president out?

By Babar Ayaz

Game plan of the establishment – at the cost of the economy and people’s nerves – apparently is to get President Zardari out. They have a two-pronged strategy: one, playing on the prevailing perception that all the corruption starts and ends with the prime minister and president. So they should be declared corrupt by the courts and unfit to rule; and two, that he is a threat to the national security if the commission declares that Haqqani wrote or dictated the mysterious memorandum.

Removing the president constitutionally is difficult because a two-third majority is needed in the parliament to impeach him. It is not possible at this stage in view of the interests of the coalition parties. Once the new members to the Senate would be elected on 2^nd March it would be more difficult as under Article 47 the constitution requires two-third majority of the parliament – Senate and National Assembly – for impeachment. It says: “…the President may, in accordance with the provision of this Article, be removed from office on grounds of physical or mental incapacity or impeached on charge of violating the constitution or gross misconduct.”

To establish these grounds the NRO case against him is being followed. On the way the prime minister has to be sacrificed for not asking the Swiss government to open a case against his president on charges of money-laundering. If he says that is an insult to his party, he is asked to rise above the party interest. But when we officially say that our elected president is a corrupt man, we are honourable men and are not insulting our county.

Notwithstanding the general perception that the president is corrupt, the fact remains that he has not been convicted in a single case since PPP government was ousted in 1996. So the fact remains that we should first get the case through the proper judicial channel. What has to be kept in mind is that he along with Benazir Bhutto was convicted by the Lahore High Court’s Justice Quayum under pressure from Nawaz Sharif hatched-man Saifur Rehman. The Supreme Court on receiving undisputable evidence declared it a mistrial and asked for a fresh judicial hearing. The matter rests there.

What is not understandable for those who remember this is why the court is insisting to right a letter against the alleged culprit while he has not been convicted in the local courts for getting a bribe from SGS for awarding a contract. The local courts are under the superior court so they can continue with the judicial process and let the president claim immunity under the constitution. At the face of it he has the immunity unless legally struck down by the court by over-stretching the meanings of Article 248 and its sub-clauses. Pakistanis have waited for justice to be done for 11 years when Asif Zardari was in jail and on the run. For the last four years he enjoys presidential immunity. So a year before he can be voted out in next elections is not long to wait now.

From the dismissal of Feroz Khan Noon’s government by Sikandar Mirza-Ayub Khan duo, to Musharraf, every military conquest of Pakistan has been in the name of weeding out corruption. And yet the politicians bounced back because Pakistanisbelieve that with all its faults a democratic dispensation is good for them. The businessmen and a section of chattering middle classes have always collaborated with the military governments because they flourish under such regimes. The cost of intellectual dishonesty, dangerous foreign and national security policy and corruption done during the military governments has always been condoned retroactively.

To get the president declared a threat to national security, Hussain Haqqani had to be trapped in a sting operation. Who could be the best bait for clever Haqqani to bite than Mansoor Ijaz a person who had repeatedly written against the ISI? Allegations against Haqqani have to be proved first before he is made to put the blame on his ‘boss’ – President Zardari. Suppose this happens the way those who have created the ‘Memogate’ have planned. Even in that case the president will have to be impeached, which as explained earlier is easier said than done.

The big question is that what’s the hurry now in pushing the government out when technically they have only a few months left? There are three scenarios now:

Scenario One: that PPP-led coalition manages to ward of the present pressure and holds the election after the completion of the present assemblies’ term in February 2013. In that case elections have to be held within 60 days so the maximum they can stretch the elections is to April 2013. But before that they have to agree in an equally represented bipartisan parliamentary committee on the nomination of a care-taker government. So what could be the worst case scenario for the opposition and impatient establishment would be that to wait for around 13 months from now;

Scenario two, Prime Minister Gilani is disqualified. In that eventuality the coalition can still nominate somebody from the assembly as the next prime minister. The rumours are that they can float the name of Chaudhry Aitzaz Ehsan, who would be acceptable to the opposition also. He can be elected through by-election as a consensus candidate of PPP and PML (N);

And scenario three, the government promises to hold early elections. Even in this scenario the election process as given in the constitution would take at least three months if not more. First at least a month would be taken to agree on the care-taker set up with the opposition, so February is gone. That means elections could be held after the budget 2012-13. Now for any coming government and given the state of Pakistan’s economy it would be ideal that the budget is presented by the care-takers. This would pass the buck of taking many tough pending economic decisions to the care-taker set up. No political government anywhere in the world can afford to take such measures so let the care-takers who are not dictated by popularism do this.

But even in this case what Pakistanis can gain by advancing the change of government by just eight months? The only beneficiary could be the ruling coalition who can pass the economic mess to the care-takers to clear and Nawaz Sharif who is losing wickets to the pace bowler — Imran Khan. The establishment can take solace that they maneuvered the ouster without getting their boots dirty and the courts can celebrate their victory of ousting an elected government before time through judgments in the name of cleansing corruption at the top. Down there corruption at every level, however, would continue to flourish as usual.  (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

By Babar Ayaz

This is how my sorrows became visible:

its dust, piling up for years in my heart,

finally reached my eyes,

the bitterness now so clear that

I had to listen when my friends

told me to wash my eyes with blood

Everything at once was tangled in blood –

each face, each idol, red everywhere.

Blood swept over the sun, washing away its gold.

The moon erupted with blood, its silver extinguished.

The sky promised a morning of blood,

and the night wept only blood …

Let it flow. Should it be dammed up?

there will be only hatred cloaked in colours of death.

Don’t let this happen, my friends’

bring all my tears back instead,

a flood to purify my dust filled eyes,

to wash this blood forever from my eyes.

                             (Faiz Ahmed Faiz 1971)

Alas! The moment to wash this blood from our eyes is still not in sight. Am I being a worrywart in forecasting more blood in the country? Am I being unrealistic forecasting increased political instability? Am I being a cynic in forecasting intense pressure on the civilian government from the establishment? Am I being rash in forecasting that judicial activism will reach its logical crescendo? Am I being a prophet of doom when forecasting a difficult economic year for the country? I wish I am proved wrong. But the rational being in me torments me with a realistic outlook. Believe me I hate this.

On a personal note I can wish a happy and healthy new year to my readers. But on a national note it’s hard to do it. As I know my good wishes are not going to change the trajectory which our country is on leads to heightened uncertainty, more bloodshed and isolation of the country.

Change of a year on the calendar does not change the fortunes of the nation. We cannot just turn the page of our self-inflicted political and economic mess with the dawn of a new year.

The year 2012 has started with heightened political instability. The Supreme Court’s decision to appoint a judicial commission to probe the real writer and instigator of the ‘Mansoor Ijaz Memo’ is going to keep the political situation fluid. One wonders why Asma did not raise the point that Nawaz Sharif’s petition has become infractuous once the Parliamentary Commission probe was initiated before the decision to form the judicial commission was taken.

The Judicial Commission would be duplicating the probe already initiated by the Parliamentary Commission. Most analysts wonder that if the findings of the two commissions conflict with each other which one will prevail. Some leading lawyers say that the issue will once again go to the Supreme Court as the constitution is silent on this issue. Then comes the question can a court which has appointed a commission, undermining the parliamentary commission, impartially decide which finding should prevail?

Here the question raised by bold human rights campaigner and defendant’s lawyer Asma Jehangir becomes relevant that the probe should be at a lower level so that the basic right of appeal given in law can follow its course. The Supreme Court of Pakistan’s involvement at the primary stage because Nawaz Sharif and the military establishment have knocked at its door has closed the option of appeals at different stages. The Supreme Court, she rightly reminded us, is the court of last resort.

But now when all the nine honourable judges have spoken with one voice nothing much can be done. Ever since the restoration of judges for which political parties, lawyers and NGOs struggled hard, the judiciary is independent and the honourable judges have shown remarkable unity of thought. At the same time much of the time of the superior judiciary has been consumed by the cases with high political over-tones because the politicians and powerful lobbies drag them in this controversial arena.

In any country election year is the time when the government becomes lame. In our case this government has been lame right from the beginning due to its own faults and a number of extragenuous factors. So it can be safely forecast that 2012 will be politically tumultuous.

Energy shortage, falling FDI, lower foreign assistance, higher inflation political instability, terrorism and poor law and order situation will continue to keep the economy in pressure. The only redeeming fact is that our agriculture income and remittances from over-seas Pakistanis and tax evading businessmen is likely to keep our nose above the water.

Dangerously the country may see more deaths of innocents and terrorist activities. UnfortunatelyPakistanis in the conflict zone and its rulers have sown a harvest of cactus for the last many years. It’s now time to reap that harvest. Together with CIA they took pride that they had created techno-guerillas. Hundreds of people were trained in making and planting bombs, today these master trainers are imparting the know-how to young Islamic militants. There is no dearth of militants who are being brainwashed by a number of Jihadi organisations active in the country. Some liberals may underestimate their commitment by believing that they are just stooges of the intelligence agencies. While the leadership of such organisations can be opportunistic, their rank and file is committed to the extent that they willingly join the suicide squads.

The more the government will move away from supporting the Jihadis and try to clip their wings, the more terrorist onslaughts are expected increase in the country. Violence is the only language they know. And so shall they speak.

Two out of four neighbours of Pakistan blame that it harbours and supports militants who cross the border and commit terrorist acts. Their claims are supported by most members of the world comity.

Our desire to have a client government in Afghanistan on the pretext of guarding our western flank; our standoff with the US governments; and our strategy to keep Indian forces engaged in Kashmir are some of the short-sighted policies which need to be changed. The winds of change are blowing strong and it seems our establishment has decided to move away from the traditional US camp to the more time-tested friend China. But can China pick our financial burden and will stand with us against the West and Indians when the push comes to shove? That is the missing question.

The positive development is that the establishment has allowed the foreign office to move towards easing the pressure from the Eastern border. Relations with India are likely to improve because our military wants to concentrate on the North Western borders where withdrawal of US and NATO forces is going to change the game. Another glimmer of hope is that the US-Taliban secret dialogue may progress in the right direction in this year. The recent visit of ISI Chief to Qatar, one hopes was to support these dialogues.

So let us brace for the worst and hope for the best in tumultuous 2012. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

“It is the duty of … writers to give expression to the changes taking place in … life and to assist the spirit of progress in the country by scientific rationalism. We believe that the new literature of … must deal with the basic problem of hunger and poverty, social backwardness and political subjection. All that drags us down to passivity, inaction and unreason we reject as reactionary. All that arouses in us a critical spirit, which examines institutions and customs in the light of reason, which helps to act, to organise ourselves, to transform, we accept as progressive.”

Now fill ‘Pakistan’ in the blanks left by me on this day of 27^th December 2011 and you have the resolution of the Progressive Writer Association at its Platinum Jubilee celebration in the South Asian sub-continent. In spite of the fact that this quote has been picked up by me from the PWA manifesto written 75 years ago when the Association was formed in April 1936 at Luckhnow. The manifesto was signed by great writers like Rabindranath Tagore, Sarat Chatterjee, Munshi Prem Chand, P.C.Roy, Jawaharlal Nehru, Pramatath Chowdhary and many others.  The words I removed from the quote are ‘Indian and Indian.’ (Source: Marxist Cultural Movement in India Chronicles and Documents 1936-47 compiled & Edited by Sudhi Pardhan)

Seventy-five years back the major concern of the progressive writers, artists of various genres was the rising fascist forces hence they came out strongly against it from Paris– London — to Luckhnow. Of course the Indian writers led by the founders of the PWA Sajjad Zahir, Mulak Raj Anand and Sardar Jaffari, M.D Taseer and Kaifi Azami, Rashida Jehan were also concerned about the colonial Raj over India and the issues raised by them in the manifesto as stated in the quote above.

But moving forward with the partition of the sub-continent while many concerns of the progressive writers regarding issues like hunger, poverty, communalism and sectarianism remain same on both sides of the border; in Pakistan writers faced additional issues like curbs on freedom of expressions, military dictatorship and now rising religious fascism. To begin with PWA got the major setback when Sajjad Zahir and Faiz Ahmed Faiz were arrested in 1951 on charges of hatching conspiracy for communist takeover in collaboration with a small section of armed forces. Then around the same time when Pakistan was getting cosier with the US and signing Mutual Defence Pact, PWA was banned along with the Communist Party of Pakistan and Democratic Students Federation.

Ban on ideologies does not wish them away. From Socrates to this day we have seen that restrictions on freedom of expression do slow down the operations of the movements attached to the banned ideology, but cannot stop the people from what they are thinking and expressing in creative ways and mediums. The gap created from the banning of the PWA was filled in when Faiz Ahmed Faiz and Dr. Rukunuddin Has’an initiated the formation of Awami Adabi Anjuman in 1967. The manifesto was signed by the writers of all the major languages of Pakistan – Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Ajmal Khattak, Gul Khan Naseer, Sheikh Ayaz, Ibrahim Joyo, Hassan Hameedi, Dr. Has’an and many other progressive writers.

This manifesto was translated in Sindhi, Punjabi, Balochi Pushto and Bengali. It was welcomed by the progressive writers across the country. Point three of the manifesto declared: “We think that the progress of nationalities is included in this democratic freedom. (Reference was to an earlier point on democracy and freedom of expression). We want that in Pakistan, which is the country of different nationalities, such conditions should be created that all nationalities’ languages and culture progress equally without the influence and domination of any one nationality. Therefore, we the writers believe that all nationalities should have right of self-determination, education in their respective languages, which should have the right to be an official language… English should be replaced in the offices and education institutions and Urdu should be used as the link language between all the regions.” (The latter demand I think should now be rewritten as English has to be a compulsory language in our schools in today’s globalised world).

Reincarnation of the PWA as Awami Adabi Anjuman (AAA) was strongly criticised by the writers embedded with the government particularly organised under Writers’ Guild. AAA continued to be rightful heir of the PWA till its revival, but that does not mean I am criticising my friends who still hold literary sittings under its banner occasionally. It is not that ban on the PWA and Communist Party of Pakistan has been lifted officially, but it seems the ruling classes have learnt to live with the left politicians and the progressive writers. May be because they think we are too weak to challenge their hold over power. Why? That is a debate which has never been held by the progressive intellectuals.

Now fast forward to the Golden Jubilee of the PWA in 1986. All the progressive writers joined hand to make this three-day event a success. The event was attended by the writers of all the national languages of Pakistan. But the issues were the same as enunciated in the first manifesto in 1936. Two new issues were widely discussed in the organising committee and in the working sessions: one, that should the people who share the stage with the military dictator General Ziaul Haque be invited as main speakers at the conference or they should be ignored; and two, all national languages should be made official languages and should be the medium of instruction. One view was that General Zia was working to promote obscurantism in the country and fighting a war against a progressive government in Afghanistan hence those who share the stage with him in literary meetings would not be invited prevailed. I was vocal supporter of this view. Similarly, AAA’s point of view on the languages issues was adopted. The conference was the first voice of the progressive against the nuclear programme of Pakistan and for peaceful relations with neighbours.

Interestingly when I attended the PWA Golden Jubilee Conference in Luckhnow, the city of its birth, I was amazed the link language issue was as emotive in India as it was in Pakistan. The Southern India wanted English to be the link language status in place of Hindi. A leading Indian writer Dr. Ali Javed says this issue is still unresolved although 25 years have passed by.

But the last 25 years between the Golden and Platinum Jubilee have been tormenting for Pakistan. We are being ripped apart by growing religious extremism, we are being blasted by suicide bombers, we are still struggling to fight growing poverty, inequality and unemployment, we are waking up to face the tortured dead bodies of a our Balochi brethrens, we are being killed for supporting reason over obscurantism Salman Taseer’s murder and aftermath are tragic examples, we are still living in the world where peace in the region is a distant dream and there is a long list I can go on and on.

Thus the progressive writers of today have to continue to play their role which the founders of the movement had expounded. Tragedy is that 75 years have gone bye and we are still gripped with same issues. Why? Let’s share our thoughts when we celebrate PWA Platinum Jubilee in Pakistan and India! (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

Tormenting 25 years

“my country is the world and my religion is to do good” Thomas paine.

“I am no longer an Athenian or Greek, but a citizen of the world” Socretes after he was exiled from Athens

“The world is our country, — people of the whole world is our countrymen.” William Lloyd Garrison

Consider this

By Babar Ayaz

The spectre of covert and overt military intervention has haunted almost all Pakistani governments since the mid-fifties. Is this fear real, or it isn’t? That is the question.

If the chequered history of this state, which is still trying to find the right equilibrium between various institutions, is any reference then the politicians’ fears and reservations that there is state within a state cannot be brushed aside as unfounded. One of the major points of differences between the civilian government and its mighty military establishment has always been, over the control, on foreign and national security policy domain.

Within two years of the adoption of the first constitution of the country General Ayub Khan intervened with a martial law, abrogated the constitution and by 1965 pushed the country into war with India by starting a thinly veiled insurgence in Kashmir – all in the name of ‘National Security.’ Thanks to international intervention the war was stopped just before we would have lost it.

When President General Ayub Khan signed the Tashkent Accord with Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri a section of the army did not like it. Thus the anti-Tashkent bogey was led by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who boisterously talked about fighting a war with India for 1000 years. Again Bhutto and the military leadership under General Yayha Khan did not accept the peoples mandate and pushed the Bangladeshis to a liberation war giving India a chance to intervene in their support. Undoubtedly it was the failure of the military government’s national security policy that resulted in the loss of East Pakistan.

Instead of reducing the size of the military and stop its meddling with politics, Bhutto resurrected the tiger to ride over the Balochs. The tiger eventually killed him through a supposedly ‘constitutional way’ by doctoring a judicial decision. Bhutto was a benefactor of the army – he got the 90,000 Prisoners of War back from India, reclaimed the lost territory and above all started the nuclear bomb project. The project that has only strengthened the hawks in the country and is now used not only as a deterrent, but also a cover to Jihadi adventures as it gives them confidence that Indian will not enter in a full scale war fearing a nuclear attack. Kargil adventure is one such example. Still PPP and Benazir Bhutto were considered as security risks by these guardians of national security.

Benazir’s first government was sacked in the name of national security by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan but not without the support of the guardian angels of national security when she tried to normalise relations with India and called off the support to the Khalistan movement. Nobody gave her the credit of supporting the missile programme of Pakistan which provided it the nuclear bombs delivery system.

Next the fear of Nawaz Sharif about this spectre turned real when he tried to sack the General responsible for Kargil. He had to seek the US intervention, for which the present government is now being blamed. What Nawaz Sharif was trying to do was to change the Pakistan-India relations paradigm, but he was not allowed by the same spectre. Isn’t it real?

What followed was again a long military rule. When Musharraf started getting soft on India his opposition started. Then drunk on power he went ahead with a number of foolish political mistakes like sacking the Chief Justice of Pakistan without following the procedures. General Musharraf had lost the support in his constituency. He was out-maneuvered by Benazir Bhutto – most courageous leader of Pakistan. She stuck her neck out against Taliban in spite of real threats to her life and laid her life for a tolerant and democratic Pakistan.

When the present government came the PPP had the leadership vacuum. Asif Zardari, who is perceived as one of the most corrupt men, managed to get the party’s leadership. But he did not forget one lesson he had learnt from his wife, that the nation needs reconciliation. And he proved that in practice. Today Imran Khan is rightly given credit of bridging the gap between the Islamists and the liberals.

Firstly, everybody knew Zardari and his cronies’ reputation when he was elected. But the real onslaught started against this government when they started touching the issues related to foreign policy and national security – a sacred zone jealously guarded by Pakistan’s security establishment. Attempt of the government to tame the ISI shrews was dubbed as a threat to the national security. In all civilized and democratic countries across the globe intelligence agencies chiefs are appointed by the civilian government. These agencies are supposed to work within the parameters of the foreign and national security policies made by the civilian government. Their job is only to provide relevant input not to dictate the policy. But the reality here is otherwise.

Secondly, statement of the President that irked the security establishment was that Pakistan will not be the first to use the nuclear option in war with India. India has also stated this during Musharraf’s time. That is how civilized peace-loving states are supposed to be. But hawks in the establishment live foolishly on the policy that India fears us because they think we are ‘mad people’ who will use the nuclear bomb when pushed hard in any conventional war. It is that lobby which we see speaking through Imran Khan and Shah Mahmood Qureshi. Unfortunately, this contention is backed by some journalists. Because the latest bogey now is that this government is a threat to the country’s nuclear programme. They are drawing support to their contention from the ‘Memo’ allegedly written by Hussain Haqqani on behalf of President Zardari.

Here I must say that change in national security and foreign policy is a must if Pakistan has to prosper and look after its people. However if the ‘Memo’ was written to the American administrations it was stupid. Even past precedence from Jinnah to Musharraf trading foreign policy and national security with the United States does not justify this rash move. PPP should learn to fight for its due right on the strength of people’s support not the ne-colonial power of the Americans.

History and recent happenings tell us that politicians are not paranoid their fears are legitimate. The authority to decide foreign and national security should rest with the people’s representatives. People are custodians of our national security. The foreign and national security crafted by the establishment has been a failure and it has today isolated Pakistan from the world. We are considered as the base for international terrorism. We the Pakistanis are faced with humiliation because of paranoia of our present policy-makers. The country’s economy suffers because of this policy. We have to build our policy exploiting our geo-strategic position for economic gains and not from military considerations only. That is if we want to take care of 72 million people who live below the subsistence line. It’s time to leave the foreign and national policy to the political government. It is the people who have to decide not the guards hired to do this job.

Coming back to the present power tussle between the PPP-led government and the military establishment, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani came out of the closet and expressed it from the floor of the parliament. Spat came the reply from the usually reserved COAS that army is not going to make any extra-constitutional move. The Supreme Court also assured that it would not endorse any unconstitutional move to remove the government as the law of necessity has been buried. The media splurged the headlines ‘back from the brink.’

But the big question is have we really turned around or this time the establishment will take the long judicial and constitutional course to remove President Zardari. This indeed is a longer arduous route to remove the present government before the March senate election. So it’s the opposition which should listen to the soothsayers’ cry “shriller than all the (media) music…‘beware of the Ides of March.’ (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

By Babar Ayaz

For the last 40 years while the Bangladeshi’s celebrate their liberation on 16th December, some ultra-nationalist Pakistanis mournfully blame the ‘separation of East Pakistan to a conspiracy.’ They are still convinced that the traitors of Awami League hatched a conspiracy to break Pakistan in collusion with ‘scheming Indians.’

Though it has taken four decades, most Pakistanis now do realise that we pushed the Bengalis over the cliff, with no choice but to fight for liberation. Thankfully the number of such-thinking people is growing every year. Many such Pakistanis now ask every year: Have we learned any lesson from the ‘separation’ of East Pakistan?

Ironically, the plain and simple answer to this is “sorry no we haven’t”. If we had, we wouldn’t be asking this question over and over again. If we had, we wouldn’t have avoided apologising to Bangladeshis about our war crimes. If we had, we wouldn’t have been mourning on the liberation of Bangladeshis from the Pakistani colonialism. If we had, we wouldn’t have been pursuing the same hawkish policies in the region in the name of national security. And most importantly, if we had we wouldn’t have been following similar tactics in Balochistan.

Forty years ago in January people of Pakistan were happy to have participated in the first-ever general elections held on the adult franchise basis. The people had spoken. The majority was in favour of maximum autonomy contrary to the impression created now. Bengalis, Pushtuns, Balochis and Sindhi speaking people were for autonomy with slight differences. It was the Punjabi establishment supported by the right-wing Urdu speaking immigrants who did not accept the majority’s verdict. Don’t be misled that a Sindhi leader Zulifikar Ali Bhutto had opposed the autonomy demand of Mujibur Rahman. He was defending the case of his real power constituency — centrists of Punjab and the military leadership. He was short of majority in Sindh.

“The new generation on both sides,” a Bangladeshi friend told me last week, “do not know that there were many leaders and political workers in West Pakistan who condemned the military operation.”  Wali Khan and Mir Ghous Baksh Bizenjo made several trips to Dhaka to break the impasse created by Bhutto and the Army. They were clear that if power is not transferred to the majority party — Awami League — the country will break. So when Bhutto said on the postponement of the Assembly session that “thank God Pakistan is saved,” NAP leaders were not the only one who said Pakistan might break. Other leaders who opposed the military operation were Asghar Khan, Nur Khan, Maulana Shah Ahmed Noorani, Mufti Mahmood, to name a few.

Then the military operation started to suppress the upsurge in East Pakistan ruthlessly. That indeed was the beginning of the end. I was in the final year of my masters in 1971 when Assembly session was postponed. Fiery communist poet Hasan Hameedi and trade union leader Aizaz Nazir asked me to accompany them to invite famous Sindhi poet Sheikh Ayaz for a protest meeting in Sukkur. He shunned us away saying that the military will not tolerate any meeting challenging their operation in East Pakistan and that we are mad to take a stand against their policy. He was right cases were registered against us as the people who wanted to break the country. Then, perhaps in August, we distributed pamphlets condemning military operations and saying that the country will break if it is not stopped immediately. This was the country-wide initiative of the left.

In Sukkur Sheikh Ayaz and Rasheed Bhatti who was the leading Sindhi short story writer, trade union activist Faiz Ghangrio and Hassan Hameedi were arrested. Except the last two, Ayaz and Bhatti were not involved in distributing the pamphlets. But the biased Urdu-speaking intelligence officials reported against them because Ayaz and Bhatti were Sindhi nationalists. I was picked up for a rough interrogation but was released something I had to hide from my family as they also disapproved of my politics.

In Karachi a Marxist leader Dr. Rukunuddin Has’an, Mehmoodul Haq Usmani, student activists like Shahid Hussain, Hidayat Hussain and many others were arrested for opposing military operation and distributing pamphlets. Young Shahid, who was a college student, was tortured so badly that he later needed psychiatric help. Punjabi poet Ahmed Saleem wrote a powerful poem against military oppression, which was published by Dr. Has’an in a weekly, both were awarded sentences for one year by the military court. Similarly, many left leaders were arrested across the country.

I know that Mukti Behani, the militant freedom fighters of Bangladesh, also committed many atrocities, but that was the reaction. I have a honour to meet people like Ali Ahmed Khan, a well known journalist, whose family members were killed in East Pakistan but he still supports the Bangladesh liberation movement. Late S.G.M Badruddin, who was Morning News Editor in Dhaka, had to hide with his Bengali friends for months, lost the only house he made in life and came back to Pakistan. But his objectivity and progressive outlook regarding Bangladeshi movement was not dictated by his personal losses. People who can hold enlightened view despite personal suffering deserve to be acknowledged.

Interestingly, DSP Tathir who had opened files against us in Sukkur for opposing military operations met me in 1973 in Karachi, by which time he had retired. With tears in his eyes he apologised and said: “Son we used to think your group wanted to break the country by opposing the military operation in East Pakistan, but now we know you were actually trying to save the country.” At least he had the courage to apologise and correct his perception. The trouble is we hear no apology from our military junta that what they did was wrong. And that air of arrogance to rule over the elected government is still blowing over Islamabad this winter. No lessons learnt. Sad, but true. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

Let’s quickly look at the fortunate side of India as the list is small. First, Indian economy has done over 8 percent for 10 years in a row. However, it is now slipping but it is still going to be around 6.5 to 7 percent depending on who you listen to — the government or independent economists. Its middle class has increased rapidly to almost 30 percent of the population, as it does when the growth rates are higher in any economy. In contrast Pakistan’s economic growth rate is ranging between 2.5 to 4 percent at its best for the last three years and many from among the 60 million middle class have fallen to the lower rung pushed by high inflation. However, measured on the basis of purchasing power parity $1.25 over 2000-2009 40 percent of Indians lived below the poverty-line, while Pakistan fared better at 22.6 percent. (Source HDI report)

Second, the democratic institutions in India are strong though the UPA coalition government is weak. But it does not have any danger from the military intervention and its foreign policy is not decided by the generals. Unlike India the democratic institutions are weak and the civilian government is constantly kept under pressure by the Khakis. The foreign policy decisions are made in Rawalpindi and all attempts by the civilian governments to move away from the dictated line are immediately dubbed as treason. Unfortunately many politicians and journalists have been abetting in this crime against the nation.

Now coming to the common woes, the most prominent being the rising inequality in the Indian and Pakistani society. Though middle class has grown in numbers in both the countries, the inequalities have grown sharper. Both the countries are blessed by a young population bulge, but that is not being harvested as the demography dividend. The result is the rising unemployment and massive migration of the rural poor to the cities. Both countries are facing pressure on their urban infrastructure and the cities are bursting at the seams. However, in India the middle classes crib that while the government has money it is not doing much for the infrastructure development. Indian government’s view is that they are not awash with cash. And they have to control inflation by cutting down fiscal deficit which hovers at 5 to 5.5 percent.

Much of the blame of the Indian economy’s slowdown is put by their economist on the dithering decision making because of pulls and pushes of the unwieldy UPA coalition. In Pakistan the government does not have that kind of money and is under pressure of over 6 percent fiscal deficit. The blame of Pakistan’s economic woes cannot be entirely put on the inefficient government, as it had inherited an economy which was kept under moratorium for two years by the previous government. And the economic growth is also challenged by extraneous factors like ongoing terrorist attacks, widespread floods for two years in a row and power shortage. But all this cannot condone the present mismanagement.

On the political front both the countries are destined to live with the system where federal and provincial governments would be formed by different coalitions. The fragmentation of Indian and Pakistani society has been going on for the last 64 years. The centrifugal forces are getting stronger and the regional leadership is preferred by both countries electorates in the elections. This is directly in proportion to the rise of regional bourgeoisie and middle classes. While this development slows down centre-led development, it has a positive outcome also. In both countries this situation has forced the central government to devolve more power to the provinces/states. Thus democracy of regions is in the offing. But a more diluted mandate in both the countries in the next elections is more likely.

In my discourse with Indian intelligentsia and middle class professionals, I found that both sides were interested in each other’s future political and foreign policy course. I was asked about the future of the Zardari-led coalition and whether the opening of ‘Memo’ sluice would deluge Zardari. Of course nobody thought that the change was going to come through constitutional means as all know about the omnipresent “A” factor in our politics. My interest was regarding the growing discord among the UPA coalition on many issues: latest being allowing foreign retail store giants 51% holding; Lokpal Bill (anti-corruption bill); rising demands by the coalition partners on the centre; failure of the regional governments to raise their own resources to please their electorate; will the congress bag enough votes in the 2014 elections to be the major party once again; and will Rahul Gandhi be the next prime minister.

Almost all the politicians and journalists were of the view that the opposition to the FDI in retail business is just the black-mailing by leaders like Mamta Banerjee to get more funds for West Bengal and eventually the government would be able to win her over. They also felt that the states which support the FDI bill should be allowed to permit foreign retail giants like Walmart, Carrefour and Metro etc. to operate in their respective states. Those which are opposing it can decide once they see the benefit of big stores to the farmers and consumers. Both in India and Pakistan urban middle class parties resist tax reforms.

Worst is that both countries are burdened with heavy subsidies to the public sector corporations. Air India alone has over Indian Rs40 billion losses (Pak Rs71 billion). While the global economic crisis has hit both countries the Indian rupee has tumbled by over 15 percent in less than a year as compared to Pakistani rupee’s approximately 2.5 percent. Business and middle classes hold the falling rupee to the poor economic management on both countries, although much of it is due to the global economic meltdown. Most of the SPI basket items are more expensive in India than Pakistan.

Dynastic politics signatures are written large on India and Pakistan politics. Congress cannot think of any other uniting factor for the party and alternate prime ministerial candidate but Rahul Gandhi. All the people I talked to were of the view that he seems to be reluctant at this stage. But if he manages to get more seats in the UP state elections where the campaign is being spearheaded by him, he will be a candidate for PM. As a matter of fact much of the Congress’ future, Indian intellectuals believe hinges on the forth-coming UP elections. But the major obstacle here would be the Dalit leader Mayawati, who has floated the idea of further dividing UP in four provinces to consolidate her power. In spite of her maverick and corrupt politics, people believe it is a positive development because this is for the first time the Dalits have been empowered in Indian politics.

Lastly, both the countries are suffering from rampant corruption which is now at the top of the urban middle classes menu. While they are backing Anna Hazare and Imran Khan in India and Pakistan respectively, quietly they are looking for tax loopholes and under-the-table bribe, wheels or baksheesh — whatever name you may like to label it with. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

Ambassador Husain Haqqani is a bad bad boy! So when he resigned following the disclosure of a non-paper allegedly dictated by him and sent by his nemesis Mansoor Ijaz to Admiral Mullen, his detractors were happy. Haqqani has indeed more enemies at home, than he has friends in the US.

He is bad among the liberals because they cannot forget his student life affiliation of Islami Jamiat-i-Tulba. He is despised by the right wing because he crossed over to PPP in the 90s and since then has been loyal to the party. Nobody is charitable to him allowing for the fact that people do out-grow their initial ideological leanings as they grow old. In his case all Haqqani critics believe that his change of heart is not on intellectual grounds but is only opportunistic for personal reasons.

He is bad for the majority of the journalists who see every colleague who joins the government as an apostate and opportunist. There is also an element middle-class jealousy which is wrapped in the statements that they could have climbed the ladder but for their love of moral and ethical values.

He is bad for the establishment because he wrote “Pakistan – Between Mosque and Military.” This book has indeed exposed the axis of power that has retarded the political and economic growth of the country. It reads like a critique of the establishment’s political history and exploitation of Islamic ideology.

He is bad because the establishment believes he influenced the US Congress and Senate in passing the Kerry-Lugar Bill that linked the military aid to Pakistan with the testimony from the US Secretary of State that military and its intelligence agencies are subservient to the elected civil government. This clause undoubtedly reflects the same thinking which has been quite ably pleaded by Haqqani in his book. Now asking the military establishment to work within the constitution and as subservient to the civil government is a blasphemy in Pakistan. Politicians and media colleagues who are embedded with the establishment loathe this idea. For them it is only the politicians of Pakistan who are corrupt and inefficient. So any move to establish civil government supremacy over our Leviathan is ‘treason’ and ‘anti-Pakistan conspiracy.’

Having said that, from the reported evidence on the dubious ‘Memo’ it seems that Haqqani is not as clever and slick as I thought. Though it is yet to be proven that he dictated the ‘Memo’ a job that cannot be done in just 11 minutes as claimed by US businessman-cum-agent Mansoor Ijaz, the text of the ‘Memo’ is not much different from what would be Haqqani and his ‘boss’ wish list.

To say that action would be taken against the officials responsible for deliberate or inadvertent intelligence failure about Osama’s where about and the breach of security by the US forces on the fateful 2^nd May is not wrong. But ideally and theoretically inviting US to assist the civilian government in making changes in the security establishment is indeed reckless and below the dignity of a nation. The out-cry of the media and opposition parties is thus right in principle.

But let’s look at it from the historical Pak-US relations perspective. Isn’t it true that one of the major reasons for removing Prime Minister Khawaja Nazimuddin by Governor-General Ghulam Mohammed was that he (Nazimuddin) had declined Secretary Dulles’s offer to join the Baghdad Pact, which was latter christened as CENTO. PML (N) has filed a case at the already over-burdened Supreme Court that inviting US interference is tantamount to treason. Wasn’t it interference when Shahbaz Sharif had sought US help to behold the commando General Musharraf when it was written on the wall that he was going to oust an elected government? Wasn’t it the US interference when the Kargil adventure of General Musharraf brought defeat to the country and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was rushed to seek US intervention on the 4^th of July? So ideally, yes we shouldn’t be inviting the US as done in the ‘Memo’ and offering cooperation, but the reality is that we have a long history of US involvement in Pakistan’s internal affairs and nobody raised the issue that it was treason.

Husain Haqqani was forced to resign because right from day one he was the man representing the elected government’s interests. In Pakistan unfortunately all democratically elected governments have been at odds with the interests of the establishment that lives on war economy. The civil-military power balance has been heavily tilted in favour of the latter since 1954, when a mutual defence pact was signed by Pakistan with the US and Ayub Khan took over as army chief. Everybody knows that foreign policy and national security policy is always decided by the establishment and any attempt by the civilian government to regain its due power is sabotaged by raising hue and cry against the political government. Nawaz Sharif has suffered it, so he should be careful in playing to the tune of the establishment in this case. He is respected for having clear views about civilian government supremacy over the military establishment. But by going to the Supreme Court is going damage his own cause.

Analysing the ‘Memo’ it also appears that Mansoor Ijaz’s thrust is to prove the point that even the Pakistani civilian government thinks that Pakistani establishment is involved covertly in supporting the Afghan Taliban. This point was made by Admiral Mullen in his last appearance before the US senate. So Mansoor has served the US interest by publishing the ‘Memo’ in his Financial Times article. He says he is a loyal American and wants to teach Pakistan a lesson. But the end result is that the Pakistani establishment and media have in the trap set by Mansoor and his American masters. It was a sting operation that bit Haqqani and Pakistan. 

Lastly, the people who called for Haqqani’s resignation, and rightly so, did not show this grace when the country had to face a security and intelligence lapse on 2^nd May and again at Mehran base. Nobody asked for the resignations or action against the people who failed the people of Pakistan. Aren’t we selective while demanding accountability? (ayazbabar@gmail.com)

Imran Khan has perhaps scored well in the first inning of the first test match of politics played at Minar-e-Pakistan last month. And for the urban middle class political pundits who are tired of corruption and bad governance it was an exhilarating moment. Educated but politically naive youth and many contemporary journalists have pinned their hopes on ‘Imran the harbinger of change.’

Change from what to what? This is the question. Imran Khan’s promises change in the culture of corruption and present policy against the Jihadi forces. He has been consciously avoiding to touch the basic issue that ails the Pakistani politics — the control of military establishment on the country’s foreign and national security policy. Another important issue is how to put the economy back on track. His party officials have some ideas. “Our committee on economy is working on a policy paper and would be presenting it to the people with the party manifesto,” PTI Karachi President Naeem-ul-Haq informed me. He has some ideas that need to be crystalised and approved by his party before sharing them with the public.

Before analysing why Imran Khan is vague on these important issues let’s focus on one of the most talked about issue in urban setting — corruption. Although corruption cannot be condoned in any society, at the same time its rise and fall shouldn’t be discussed without social, economic and political perspective.

First let’s briefly define ‘Corruption’ as it is perceived today by the economists and political analysts. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Politics “Corruption obtains when an official transfers a benefit to an individual who may or may not be entitled to the benefit, in exchange for an illegal payment (the bribe). By taking the bribe, the official breaks a legal binding he gave to his ‘principal’. It further says “a positive relation appears to exist between the extent of bribery and the ‘level of red tape….”

Two social scientists Donatella Della Porta and Yves Meny in their excellent book ‘Democracy and Corruption in Europe’ have said: “Corruption can be initially defined as clandestine exchange between two markets; the political and/or administrative market and the economic and social market.”

Corruption perhaps has been the oldest evil that has existed in the human society. The issue has come under the spotlight particularly after the end of the cold war. Before that the capitalist democracies were only critical of corruption in the socialist countries and would cover up their own follies. But once the fear that people might get attracted to an alternate socialist politico-economic system fell with the Berlin war, the western democracies became introspective about the ills within.

Corruption in developing and developed countries is not only an exclusive domain of the politicians and the government officials, as it appears from the roaring speeches of Imran Khan and the media in Pakistan. Multi-billion corruption scandals in the West have brought down famous banks and companies and the worst recession. In Pakistan the media industry is also well aware of the corrupt practices of their owners, advertising agencies and even multinational brand managers. The irony is that the same people sermon ad-nauseam about politicians’ and government officials’ corruption — forgetting that only the pious who have not sinned can cast the first stone. As Imran Khan has yet not ruled his party can claim that it has clean hands. But once the elections dynamics will take over him, and many who did not find place in PML (N) and PPP will jump on his bandwagon the ‘clean professionals’ and former Jamiat-e-Islami cadre is more likely to be sidelined in PTI.

Public interest about corruption in the developing countries like Pakistan has surged as the democratic institutions started functioning and the economic structure is being deregulated giving more space to the private sector. This transition has led to the collision between the market players and a new social class of politicians, who are seen by the people, acquiring wealth rapidly. The arrogance of this new class of politicians is irritating to the middle class of the country. When the government officials and corrupt politicians react to the voices raised against corruption they miss the point. They fail to recognise that with the democratic evolution ‘new social forces’ have also “risen which previously lacked social muscle to stand up.” These emerging social forces are led by the middle class journalists and backed by the rejuvenated judiciary. In the late eighties the media and judiciary of the developed countries like Italy, Spain, UK and France went through the same throes. And corruption in these societies, USA included, continues even today.

We should analyse who are the major actors in this ‘corruption drama’ at the national level and what gives them the chance to gather this rent from the society. What is the level of the financial loss to the country because of corruption is difficult to say. The figures floating in the media at present are not backed by any in-depth economic study. I think a bigger loss to the economy is committed by the delayed decisions on important development and commercial issues. Bitter sugar fiasco and reversal of Steel Mill privatisation are good examples.

Leaving aside the corruption at the lower level for the time being let’s discuss where each deal runs into million and billions. The major actors in Pakistan are the same culprits who scream from the pulpit that corruption is rampant – politicians, civil & military bureaucracy and the business tycoons. The latter is the biggest beneficiary of this system. As one businessman confessed the other day after giving me a lecture on rising corruption that if a business house pays Rs10 million in bribes, the gain acquired is at least ten times of this amount.

Much of the corruption that irritates the common man is when they have to pay bribe to get the legal work done at the lower level. This American functionalist say is for ‘lubricating the machinery that was jammed’ in the developing countries. They also appropriately named it as ‘wheels’ as opposed to ‘bribe’ because the person who lubricates these ‘wheels’ is just getting the file moved cutting the bureaucratic red tape.

In Pakistan at present however the corruption of the politicians is in focus much more than the lower level corruption which is irritating the common man. A seasoned professional manager had told me once that “when we vote for one candidate who has spent Rs20 million or more on his election campaign, we also stamp approval that he can recover his investment with interest.” Those of us who have the opportunity as journalists to visit the elected representatives’ homes or offices in the morning have seen a number of people sitting in the waiting room with applications. And almost 80% ask for illegal favours. These people do not suffer from middle class morality issues that corruption and nepotism are immoral.

The facts that majority of the 37 million votes cast went to these two parties show that voters did not care for all the corruption allegations which were drummed during the eight-year Musharraf rule. The people’s court gave its verdict in the elections. I am not saying that many who are mentioned in the NRO list were innocent; my contention is that the voters did not care. May be they choose the lesser devil, the one which is approachable.

There is no doubt that corruption is widespread in this country. But most of the people who complain about this in their drawing rooms or on TV have either not paid their taxes honestly or have bribed the people to get extra favours. It is a part of all capitalist economies; the difference is that of degrees.

Second major plank of Imran Khan’s politics is that the action against the militant Islamic groups by the military should be stopped immediately and peace talks should be initiated. Many analysts who have followed the Jihadi organizations and rise of religious extremism in Pakistan have explained that the terrorist activities by these outfits will not go away if the state would lay down arms, instead of the other way around. The whole issue is much more complex than Imran Khan tries to put it.

His contention is that terrorism in Pakistan will end once the US and its allies leave Afghanistan. But what he forgets is that it has existed even before 2011 as various Jihadi forces were nurtured by our establishment in Pakistan. Then there is the whole Al Qaeda inspired ideological basis of Jihadi organisations which aims at establishing an Islamic Caliphate on the pattern of Taliban’s government that was thrown out of Afghanistan by the US and the anti-Taliban forces in 2001. A trailer of this was seen in Swat where when Islamists were given a chance, they wanted not only to establish a parallel system based on their brand of Sharia, but expand it to the rest of Pakistan. People of Swat celebrated their liberation. The army has to still protect the people from Mullah Fazlullah who recently attacked a check post in Chitral to enter in the peaceful valley.

After the withdrawal of the US forces, Afghanistan is likely to drift into a worse turmoil, yes worse than what it is facing at present. The success of Taliban in Afghanistan would be dangerous for the Pakistani moderate society as it will give a boost to the Jihadis. At the same time there is danger of both Pakistan and India competing with each other in Afghanistan for influence. Imran’s policy of appeasing Taliban is thus going to disappoint the urban youth and the pop-band lovers. It is also contradictory to his recent statement that he will not allow Pakistan’s land to be used by the terrorists against any neighbours.

There are a number of other factors which are ignored in Imran’s narrative. Most probably it is the influence of the ex-Jamaat leaders and political workers who joined him when PTI was launched. That was before the middle class politically-uneducated urban youth and so-called political heavy-weights started pinning hope on him.

Imran Khan has been soft-peddling against the real rulers of Pakistan – the military establishment.  Many commentators have alleged that he is being presented as an alternate of Nawaz Sharif’s PML. It is heart-breaking for the establishment to have a Punjabi leader Nawaz Sharif challenging its control on the realpolitik. Whether PTI’s rise is supported by the establishment or not, the Lahore performance of party shows that he would be an ‘MQM’ to PML (N) in urban Punjab, as MQM is to PPP in Sindh. When MQM was rising in mid 1980s the establishment wanted to use it to neutralise PPP and nationalist Sindhi forces. But MQM developed a mind of its own as it got power in urban Sindh. This is so typical of all such forces that are initially nurtured by the establishment. Jihadi outfits that have challenged the army are point in case.

Now I would like to share three anecdotes in their chronological order for the benefit of some friends who ask will Imran Khan bring a change. When asked whether they would be willing to support Imran’s Islamists stance as people who believe in liberal secular politics, generally their reply was that they would be able to bring him closer to their thinking. This reminded me that when Bhutto took-over PPP’s leadership from J. A. Rahim and Mubashar Hasan who were in the initial stage of making a left-of-the-center some leading landlords of Sindh and Punjab started joining him. A leading leftist student leader of Karachi told us that Bhutto is a good man and the leftists should support him to marginalize the feudal lords. But at the end of the day we saw that Bhutto marginalized the leftists founding members like J. A. Rahim, Mubashar Hasan and Meraj Mohammed Khan. By 1977 Bhutto had all the big landlords with him and he was out to appease religious parties. He declared Ahmadis a minority, Friday as the weekly holiday and banned liquor.  And religious slogans were splashed at the Nishtar Park election meeting in replacing the leftist slogans of the 1970 rally. And by 1977 he became a hostage in the hands of the defeated and humiliated army which was resurrected by him and unleashed against his political opponents in Balochistan.

Cut and fast-forward to Musharraf period before the 2002 elections. A banker friend asked me to join him for a lunch at PC Karachi to meet Imran Khan. Elated Imran narrated in detail his exclusive lunch with President General Musharraf. He said that Musharraf has told him: “you and I can work together.” Imran had no reservations about Musharraf bringing a coup against an elected government, his Kargil adventure that humiliated the country and his pro-US policies. But Musharraf said the same thing to Chaudhry Shujaat and this time meant business.

Next a Sindhi ex-PPP leader, who is a nationalist at heart, invited me to meet Imran at his house where he had some Sindhi politicians also. This was a larger crowd. After listening to Imran’s view the Sindhi leaders, who are provincial assembly members also, asked a simple power politics question: Will the establishment support his party? Imran did not rule it out. However, recently when pressed by the CNN and PML allegations that he is the establishment’s man, Imran said that if elected to power he will dictate the policies and the military establishment would be kept out of politics. He thinks that high moral ground of an elected government can counter any interference by agencies in making policies. Is it that simple in a country where war economy has created a strong vested interest lobby?

A senior analyst who specializes on the military in Pakistan view is that the senior members of the establishment are divided between liberal nationalists who are pro-US as they want it’s financial and technically sophisticated weapons, the other group is of conservative nationalists which is inclined towards China as an alternate source and then there is a section that is fundamentalists and wants to break all ties with the US. This I think explains Imran’s stance on Afghanistan which is anti-US but he is favourably inclined towards China. The establishment it seems is preparing a political ally for post 2014 years when the US forces will withdraw from Afghanistan. The ally — who can also keep the fundamentalists happy.

But his politics and views will get diluted during the course of the next one year to the general elections. The dilution of his hard views against the corrupt politicians has already started as many PPP and PML (Q) disgruntled elements are being welcomed in his party. At the same time it is quite safe to forecast that all future civilian governments are going to be coalition governments – meaning a lot has to be given on the table while cobbling an alliance.

Imran’s PTI may change the balance of political power in Punjab but that he can bring any change in the power politics between the establishment and politicians who are elected in a democratic dispensation is a big question mark. As an Islamist party, he will also have to show whether he will follow the Justice Party of Turkey course or just another faction of Jamaat-e-Islami with pop music and digital media yuppies in his rallies as a point of difference. He says he is a follower of Allama Iqbal, but little does he realise that pan-Islamism of the poet is a thing of the past with no relevance to the present 21^st century world. (ayazbabar@gmail.com)