A story of a struggle

On September 9, 2008, with oath taking of Mr. Asif Ali Zardari as President of Pakistan, an era came to an end in the cycles of control over Pakistan. I have lived through this era and have been fortunate to observe the last few years of this era with close proximity and this post is my account of what happened to the best of my knowledge. Before I move forward with the narration, let me state a disclaimer, this account is based on what I saw observed, heard, read and analyzed. What I analyzed can certainly be wrong though it is supported by a logic which makes sense to me based on what I have known and seen. What I have heard might not be the final word as well. For though, the sources were mostly the people who were at the heart of the whole process, and I have no reason to doubt what they told me but again I, in some cases, might not be fully aware of the context of what I heard or came to know. Same holds true for what I observed or read. I state this disclaimer for three reasons. One, to let those of you who read keep in mind that though this is the account based on the best of my knowledge and analysis and I believe in what I am writing, you should not believe in it before you cross-check the facts and before the events, logic and conclusion narrated here makes sense to you. Second, it is my crusade against the self-righteous journalists and intellectuals who believe what they have heard, analyzed and reported is right because they know it and so this is what defines the principle and this is what defines the truth. Based on how events unfolded, I can claim that I was fortunate to see them more closely than even many of the top journalists or politicians in Pakistan might have. More importantly, in the course, my analysis and my predictions have been more spot-on than most of the people (please refer to the blog). And I say this not because I want to boast, but because I want to emphasize on the significance of no-kn0w-all thinking in our society that I strongly feel about. And third, this approach of mine conforms to the standards which history narration should adhere too.

First let us have a brief background recap. First and foremost, one must be familiar with the impact of unleashing the moral watchdog on streets. To me, Taliban in Afghanistan or Wahabis in Saudi Arabia or Ayatullahs in Iran or Catholic Church in dark ages, did not practice moral watchdog role for their love of religion or religious teachings but because this unleashing of hunter (called chanta in Lahore) in the name of religious moral authority is one of the most potent weapon to create a hegemony and terror which not only consolidates the rule but also kills the free thought in the due process thus making it close to impossible to bring about a change internally. For this particular reason, in most cases (especially in Muslim World), theocracies fell in onslaught of foreign invasion and since the decay with in was strong yet hidden, most of them collapsed like a house of cards.

Secondly, the world we live in is different from what it was even 10 years back. If we will try to see and explain events in paradigm of US vs Russia or US vs China, we would be grossly mistaken. Specially, if someone reviews War on Terror through this prism, he will be grossly mistaken. Internationally community, by and large, has zero tolerance for terrorism, despite their differences on 1101 issues.

Third, conception that countries in the world blindly tow the US line does not make sense. All the countries in the world, from monarchies of Middle East to constitutional democracies of Western Europe, pursue their own agenda and in the due course at times even succeed in exploiting and double-crossing US and others. Even Pakistan, all along its history, has pursued its own agenda. In fact, under the dictatorship, the dictators have used the notion of US backing to pursue the Pakistan establishment's world vision, deceiving people of Pakistan and US alike. Needless to say, by the same logic even US pursue its own agenda.

In reality what is happening in Pakistan these days has its roots back in a confrontation starting in 50s. The forces of religion which opposed the creation of a democratic and modern Pakistan, quickly jumped in to claim themselves being the definers of its ideology once it came into being. Post partition because of massive migration, hoisting flag on Red Fort of Delhi was a sentimental appeal to the migrant communities in Pakistan. This was exploited to create a jingoistic mentality. Pakistan Army, by then, was an extension of Royal Indian Army and was secular in its ethos and conduct but had ambitious power plans. These generals found in beard-in-belly (I really like this term to describe covert fundamentalists) bureaucrats like Shahab and Gohar the minds to pursue their agenda. And the Gohar's and Shahab's of the world felt compelled by their traditional/religious duty to do the ground work for infiltration of religious-minded in media and bureaucracy. Under Yahya Khan, Jamat-e-Islami saw an opportunity to infiltrate the ranks of army policy making as well and the character and shape of a secular army started changing into a fundamentalist one. Not many people in Pakistan know that it was Jamat-e-Islami who won all 160 seats unopposed in East Pakistan when Awami League (the then majority party) was outlawed by Yahya regime and Awami League MPs were disqualified.

It will be only fair to say that the region we live in is hostile to both modernity and democracy. It can not be a mere coincidence that three of the most politically unstable nations in Asia, Turkey, Lebanon and Pakistan, are situated between dark-aged political system of Middle East and modern democracies. The power centers in our West have not been very comfortable with the idea of a modern, democratic, and liberal Pakistan progressing in the realms of technology, commerce, nuclear arsenal, military might and international relations. If Pakistan becomes a model of working democracy, people in Middle East will start demanding the same. They have always been more comfortable with dictatorial and conservative regimes in our part of the world and have supported them overtly and covertly. If a successful democracy in Pakistan, with 7th largest Army in the world, nuclear arsenal, and a large pool of modern professionals emerges, its ripple effects will be felt in our immediate West as well.

Zia-Ul-Haq was the messiah these beards in bellies were waiting for. He was an ideologue who was deeply influenced by Jamat-e-Islami and Ikhwan ideology and had a deep hatred for liberal/ secular movements in Muslim world, manifested by the massacre of PLO and Palestinians in Jordan. He was the first one in our vicinity to introduce the terror of lashes in our region (sounds like Taliban does not it). Under him a deliberate campaign was launched to malign the polity and democracy. You could see in restaurants signs "Political and vulgar talk not permitted" - equating politics with vulgarity. To kill the nursery of democracy, the student politics, JI militants were entered into the campuses and in the mayhem that was caused as a result, student politics was banned. Infiltration of militants and use of state brutality were used to crush the trade unions in the country and thus in a systematic way each and every frontier that could have resisted the autocratic rule was crushed.

When Americans contacted Pakistan for help in fight against Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Zia agreed to help only if he would be given a free hand in devising the war plan and fighting this war in the name of religion rather than Afghan nationalism. The right-wingers keep mentioning again and again that Afghan's have always resisted foreign invasion, yet they fail to tell us that before the war against Soviets, Afghan resistance has always been rooted in Afghan pride and nationalism and not the religion. American's war in Afghanistan with American's money was used to bring to reality the Ikhwani idea of “Army of Faithful” under Zia-Ul-Haq. Afghan war against Soviets was matched $ to $ by the most conservative and backward regime in Middle East, Saudi Arabia. One can see why US was willing to spend billions to combat Soviets, what was the urgency on part of our Saudi friends to spend their billions is hard to understand in the first instance. A deeper analysis reveals that through this Saudis have gained enormous influence not only in Pakistan and Afghanistan but also throughout the entire Muslim world with spread of Wahabism (a conservative brand of religion). From Faqir Ippi to PLO, Muslims have been fighting imperialism, but never before the advent of Wahabi jihad, did they resort to barbarian means and thoughts, that they are now associated with. It has always been part of Ikhwan philosophy that it is justified to kill Muslims in morally corrupt Muslim world, if they don't fight for Ikhwani principles. Needless to say, all the top leaders of Qaeeda and Ikhwan, raise from Saudi Arabia or Egypt, yet they are fighting regimes all across the world except being present in their own countries to fight the Western allies there. When did OBL lead an onslaught inside KSA?

After the death of Zia-Ul-Haq, controlled democracy was allowed a run in Pakistan and these elements turned to Nawaz Sharif as their new figurehead. An important point to be noted is that in line with the most stereotypical traditions of brotherhood, Zia-Ul-Haq himself had prayed that his life be given to Nawaz Sharif. Now we know based on the confirmed reports in media circulating for last 8-10 years that Nawaz Sharif and OBL had contacts (source is Qazi Husain Ahmad), that OBL funded the no-confidence move against Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz introduced 15th amendment aimed at unleashing the lashing and moral watchdog once again, and last but certainly not the least, Sharifs have been allowed to build an industrial empire in Saudi Arabia, where traditionally the trilogy of Bin-Sauds, Bin-Wahabs and Bin-Ladens has a hegemony over the economy.

Nawaz Sharif's rise to the center-stage of course was not unanimous in these circles. Jamat-e-Islami felt that it did not get a fair deal. Jamat thought that it was at the forefront of bringing this fundamentalist revolution to Pakistan and so the leadership should not go to Nawaz Sharif. But the real backers of the movement realized that in Pakistan, selling bearded Jamat will be a hard sell and so they needed a clean-shaven Sharif. Pakistan is a society where Mullah is considered to be a social outcast by and large. Similarly, at that time, the lines between Army, Security Services and these fundamentalists were very blur and they were working in tandem to fight the menace of PPP. The conflict between Jamat and Nawaz still runs in the under-currents of rightwing politics of Pakistan.

Soon, however, non-fundamentalists in Army (many of whom were commissioned in 50s and 60s era of secular Army) started realizing the threat of Fundamentalists takeover and their real motives. For this reason, in 90s all three COASs, post General Beig, were traditional military men.

In her first regime, Benazir Bhutto had no idea of whom she was up against. She thought of the fight as a typical fight between right wing and left wing in Pakistan and a fight between Generals and people. She tried to bring ISI under her control, not for she realized its fundamentalist tendencies but for she wanted to curb its political maneuvering capabilities. It was not until late in her second regime did she realize what she and Pakistan were up against. Though to be honest, she was the first one to have realized the threat and have a full grasp of its consequences.

At the same time, in late 80s and early 90s, a confrontation erupted between Arab militants and house of Saud. For some, this is a confrontation which exists within the house of Saud itself, between the doves and hawks there. It was more of a confrontation on modalities than principle. Hawks wanted to go for a kill, doves wanted to do it in a subtle way. On one level, the opening up of the channel with a fundamentalist regime in Shia Iran (I believe Iranian revolution is a revolution of Shia wahabis – and Ayatullahs and Wahabis have a lot in common despite sectarian differences) was an example of opening channels with like-minded regimes by the doves. The divide did hit Pakistan as well. Jamat-e-Islami took side with hawks, Nawaz corp. sided the doves. Differences were apparent yet in the undercurrent lied the common goal to resist modernity and democratic values.

In 1996, Benazir Bhutto’s second government was thrown out. She herself has accused General Hamid Gul and Maj. General Mahmood (the coup-maker of 1999) for this in an interview to Herald in 2001 (this by the way is a very insightful interview so read it if you can get hold of it - and my thinking is this interview is the main reason of the then editor of Herald, Sherry Rehman, being the chief information manager of PPP). After that, a crash course began in eliminating PPP. Saif Ur Rehmani accountability was unleashed on this country and Bhutto had to fight yet another and the toughest battle for survival. A battle, in which, she survived but died.

In the true tradition of regimes of oppression and backwardness, Nawaz banned pop music on television, undermined the institutes of state, bulldozed courts, introduced a weird dupata policy, and introduced 15th amendment to be the Khadim-e-Islamabad Sharifain. An interesting point to note is that introduction of 15th amendment bill to NA coincided with Saudi bailout package post nuclear-blast sanctions. I repeat this for we forget. And no where has he give assurance that this will not be repeated.

Dark-age agenda got pursued at its fastest pace under Sharif's second government. A thought got inculcated in the minds of many young educated individuals of Pakistan that if we could have like-minded regimes in the region from Pakistan to North Africa, we will touch glory - even if the regimes are undemocratic, conservative and oppressive. What these young educated minds were not told was, how will the oppression help bridge the gap of free thinking required to achieve technological supremacy? Is it a mere coincidence that post Zia Ul Haq, we have not produced a single Parveen Shakir or Iftikhar Arif, let alone Faiz or Faraz and forget about producing Dr. Salams. Neither were they told how will we thrive in a system that does not support free enterprise but thrives on crony capitalism? And how corrupt that system will be despite claims of getting rid of corruption? But for the minds entrenched in the past glory of Muslims, raised in the slogans of last victory to Islam in Islamyat and Mutalia-e-Pakistan textbooks, this was a sweet soother, the one they embraced. Democracy became a slur with educated urban of Pakistan and the utopian prosperity of Middle East (Saudi Arabis has close to 30% poverty rate by some estimates and 18% unemployment rate) became the dream.

With dove's man Nawaz Sharif consolidating his grip on power, the hawks were getting frustrated. They were looking for an opportunity and the opportunity came soon. Last frontier of the control over state apparatus of Pakistan for doves was military. It was deeply infiltrated with the regressive thought and like-minded, yet the top brass had been in control of those who prided themselves in British Military tradition. But when General Karamat resigned, came an opportunity for an all powerful Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to appoint a COAS of his choosing. Seniority favored General Ali Kuli Khan, yet he was a traditional Army man. So eyes fell on General Musharraf - an adventurous General of Mohajir origin. From Javed Hashmi to Nisar Ali Khan, no one in PML-N will tell you that one of the main reasons for picking Musharraf was his Jihadi credentials and even, allegedly, his training operations for militants and of course his infiltration plans for Kargil dating back to 1995, which he finally acted on. This is how he became a son of Mian Sharif.

But in appointment of Musharraf, hawks saw a hope. Here they had an impulsive guy, ready to be adventurous. Mahmoods and Azizs, the coup makers and the hawks, thought of staging a coup and using this rootless Mohajir to further their interests. To this date, Pakistanis have not had an answer to why Mahmood misdirected Musharraf about his meetings with US administration's official post 9/11? Neither do we know any details of the talks between Mullah Omar and General Mahmood in Kandhar before American attack on Afghanistan.

Coup got rid of Nawaz Sharif, but post-coup Musharraf, shrewd and cunning, turned against his coup makers, became close to doves in Arab world, befriended Americans, and kept patronizing hawks. His plan was to befool Americans by the threat of extremists and win support and get money. He double-crossed Americans, and the Bush administration, in the truest tradition of naivety of American policy making, took him on face value. By 2004, Americans started realizing that they were being played by their friend in Pakistan. What made the matters worse was the fact that Musharraf's dangerous game was making it evident that Pakistan will fall to hawks - the Qaeeda brand Islamists who were flexing their muscles under a friendly regime of Musharraf. They started looking for alternative courses. This made them look back to the woman who was touring capitals of the Western world and trying to make the policy makers realize that terrorism cannot be confronted without democracy. Most of the policy makers and media had ruled her out politically after her fall from power in 1996 and the media campaign of charges of corruption that followed. But in 2002 that woman, even in her absence, managed to win the maximum votes in elections that were far from free and fair (media is turning into the most stinking and useless instrument of our times). This victory made Americans listen to her carefully amidst suspicion of betrayal by a General to prolong his rule.

Americans initiated a dialogue between Musharraf regime and Benazir Bhutto by persuading Musharraf that if he wants to prolong his stay in power and wants to receive Americans backing, he needs to give his setup a democratic face. And so the negotiations began. Back home, Musharraf, never popular, was becoming more and more popular every day and this unpopularity was translating into American unpopularity in Pakistan. With the win of Democrats in 2006 Congress elections and ever growing unpopularity of Musharraf in Pakistan, both the doves and hawks realized Musharraf will either fall or strike a deal with PPP. They knew that both ways, it meant PPP ultimately taking control, in first way through post-Musharraf elections and in second way by entering into the system and turning Musharraf into a lame duck. They also knew that PPP this time, fully understanding what it is up against and fully prepared to deal with it, will root them and their thought out. In desperation, they too started planning to deal with it.

When Musharraf fired Chief Justice (we do not still know what made him take this decision and whether it was some plot of fundamentalists, hatched against him) came the opportunity. It became the boiling point of anger against Pervez Musharraf. The streets got agitated. All political parties, including PPP, had no option but to join the protests for the unconstitutionality of the action. Needless to say, PPP had the most numbers on street and PPP and ANP were the only two parties to have shed the blood in the movement. The fundamentalists believed that with their men in places like a pro-Nawaz religious conservative judge Justice Ramday or their men in media, they will be able to channel this movement. There was a competition between reporters, during live coverage, to call PML-N the show stealer - not sure if it was a miracle of lafafa. Nawaz, through this, was trying to show to establishment that he is still politically relevant and can be counted on rather than outcast PPP to continue with hegemonic power plays of the past. The aims were two-fold. At one level force Musharraf to have a bargain with Nawaz and thus protect the conservative core in the government and two, if it fails, ensure creation of a Frankenstein judiciary to provide backing to manipulate the system and elections to ensure the victory of like-minded forces in coming elections.

Nawaz called APC, over the head of ARD, and effectively pulled out of ARD - the old IJI was resurrected. Threat of APC was used to push Musharraf to a bargain with Nawaz. The only issue in the bargain was, because of his past position, Nawaz was not in a position to sit with Musharraf in any setup and insisted on departure of Musharraf, which was not acceptable to Musharraf. Nawaz had to take a tough stance against Musharraf. It would have required some time to do the groundwork for such reunion and with ever mounting pressure on street and increasing international pressure, time was a scarce resource.

On July 20, Iftikhar Chaudhary got restored. Musharraf offered Bhutto NRO, in response to her demand for lifting the ban on 3rd term prime ministership. Bhutto, being a smart politician, clinched to the opportunity. It was then that Benazir Bhutto decided that if she cannot be Prime Minister, she will sit on transformation as the President. A statement was attributed to her, in which she said, if we will not be able to repeal third time Prime Ministership ban, she can still become President. Bhutto also managed to make Musharraf and mediators agree that in case of Musharraf's reelection, the verdict of judiciary will be final and binding on both parties.

Benazir Bhutto had hoped that for PPP's contribution to CJ movement and with Aitzaz Ahsan at the helm of it, this time she will not get an unfair treatment from judiciary. She thought, the era of judicial hostility and bias against PPP might be over with restoration of CJ and alas she had a disappointment once again.

Benazir Bhutto believed that with Aitzaz Ahsan being at the center of CJ movement and PPP contribution to the movement, she will not get an unfair treatment at the hand of judiciary. First, Iftikhar Chaudhary stayed NRO and on the other hand allowed Nawaz Sharif to land without any mention of his convictions by courts of law after the coup. And then, it was judiciary's reluctance to stop Musharraf's reelection on many valid constitutional grounds. In public, she leashed at Iftikhar Chaudhary in a press conference (that can be found on this blog) and in private she complained that it does not hurt me if people, I trust, cannot help me for their compulsions. What hurts me is that they should have the courtesy to let me know that they cannot. Now whether it was a disappointment in Iftikhar Chaudhary or Aitzaz Ahsan, I do not know.

Bhutto landed, was given a clear signal of what awaited her if she dared stand in the way of these forces. Hope was she would budge. She was brave and she stood the ground. It was decided she be eliminated to stop the onslaught of modernity and democracy. Hope was that her removal will leave the center stage of politics for Nawaz Sharif only.

But the game had changed. This time, unlike previous terms, PPP came fully prepared. It was the only party which opposed delay of January 8th elections, despite it being the party in chaos. Elections got postponed for 40 days. When they took place, they were engineered to ensure a hung parliament to ensure PPP does not have a free hand. Nawaz joined PPP in hope of being the power broker and to ensure his government in Punjab. When the PPP and N were forming the alliance, the media managers of N-League were launching a campaign of character assassination against PPP leadership, in a 90s like manner. When Zardari decided to remove Musharraf in May 2008, Musharraf approached Nawaz through old bureaucrats for help. Nawaz issued a strong statement amid chants of Musharraf ku phansi du and this helped Musharraf get a life line. Nawaz and media tried to mount pressure to have a Frankenstein judiciary, with the hope of crippling the government through it and revert back to controlled snap elections. The move was foiled by failure of long march. PPP decided to go with impeachment of Musharraf, because of his political position, Nawaz had no option but to join in. Musharraf resigned and Nawaz Sharif left the coalition, not on restoration of judiciary but on the issue of nomination of Asif Zardari as presidential candidate by PPP. A written agreement was put forth before the media and PPP was accused of betrayal and deceit. In all this media propaganda, no one asked one simple question. Nawaz Sharif has been saying for months that his only issue is judiciary. If this was the case, how come the candidature of president was ever part of negotiations and agreement? And wasn't it mere power politics and not the principled stance, our beard-in-belly journalist keep raving about.

What these forces of regression in general and PML-N in particular needs to realize is, that the game has changed. Main stream political parties of Pakistan, despite their differences, have realized the threat of extremist takeover and where this takeover will leave us as a society. International community is not ready to tolerate anything short of democratic Pakistan. They have lost control of Army and Army has decided to combat extremists, in Pakistan and with in (and now the right-winger have unleashed a campaign against COAS and Army, fully realizing that without controlling Army, they have no chance). Even in power centers of Middle East, strong voices are emerging for opening up and embracing modernity. Above all, the time of the idea of a democratic, liberal and modern Pakistan has come.

I strongly believe, PML-N has a role to play. But it must realize the time to look for power centers' backing to turn a base in 10 districts of Punjab into majority is over and time to resist change and modernity is over. Parties always have an option to correct the course. I hope N does the same. PML-N brand as a political party is an asset for Pakistan. It should be part of this process of change to make it better rather than resist it from fringes. Talk and self-consolation that PPP will fail under Zardari or this is their last term will serve only deception. PPP is here to stay as a national party. The room for second party on national horizon is empty. Who takes it will be decided by the conduct of N leadership and their realization of reality and embracing it with positivity. Else it will go to Q.

This struggle can be attributed to none but the resolve of people of Pakistan. Never did I realize in my life, the character of my great nation. They came out to vote amidst terrorist threats. In the regions dominated by Taliban, they voted the most liberal parties. This, my friends, is character. Their struggle has given them another shot at democracy and their character and vigor makes me hopeful of its success. This is a story of a struggle in which Pakistan got democracy and lost Benazir Bhutto.