Issue 50 Vol III, October 31, 2007

A N A L Y S I S

Dangerous Portends
Gobind Thukral

TO say that Pakistan is passing through critical times is to state only the noticeable. Worst the hope generated by lawyers agitation where the public enthusiastically participated and made the mighty general Pervez Musharraf bow and reinstate the dismissed chief justice of the Supreme Court has nearly evaporated. Ever since then his stock has been falling.

American policy makers who have nearly dictated politics and policies in Pakistan for decades have cynically helped waste a grand opportunity. Under Mother of all Deals ,Musharraf has been allowed to manipulate the existing parliament and the state assemblies that elected him president in a perplexed election last time, have now have been maneuvered to elect himself again before some weeks before the lives of these institutions was over.

One former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was packed up as soon as he landed ending his exile, another Benazir Bhutto landed amidst chaos and violence. She may have won more sympathy and but remains a poor choice as her two earlier terms were a great waste. Pakistan is not only losing its fight against poverty, injustice and inequity, but even a semblance of democracy seems a far fetched idea. Its northwest frontier provinces are in a shambles. Bordering the violence struck Afghanistan, Balochistan, Waziristan and the North Western Frontier Province are soaked in the blood of the innocent poor. Daily reports indicate only more and more of brutality and nothing else that could assure the people that good would prevail over evil.

For Benazir it was a rapturous welcome soaked in the blood of the innocent. On October 18 ending  eight years of self-imposed exile to launch her political comeback, Pakistan's former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto returned to her home country. Within hours her caravan of supporters in Karachi was greeted with bombs that killed 139 people and injured over 500. These were just not bad omens for this daughter of the east, but clear signs of coming events and she was adequately warned of. Pakistan is reaping what it has sown, the Islamic extremism and the Taliban backed by army and the government was once the anchor shield to fight the soviets in Afghanistan and Indians in Kashmir. Now they are virtually ruling the roost in large areas of Balochistan, NWFP and Waziristan, threatening the social and political fabric in rest of the country including its capital Islamabad.

Mrs. Bhutto laid the blame at the doors of the Islamic extremists the inimical elements in the government lead by President Pervez Musharraf.  Ever since then she has showed more determination to confront to save Pakistan from extremism, the terrorists are trying to take over my country and we have to stop them." Her movements and touch with her supporters has been severally restricted and no one knows her fate. Guarding her is stupendous task for the security forces.

Pakistan needs reconciliation not only between some individual politicians but also between political parties having adverse views. They should agree on a genuine democracy and rule of law to benefit the deprived.

Forty years ago Zulfikar Ali Bhutto wrote a book "The Great Tragedy" just six months before the disintegration of Pakistan. He wrote that "Pakistan is passing through a terrible ordeal. This country, born in pain, is experiencing its gravest crisis. The nightmare of Pakistanis killing Pakistanis is not yet over. Blood is still being spilled. The situation has become greatly complicated by the aggressive involvement of India". Forty years later his daughter is not blaming India but some Pakistanis for the great tragedy in Karachi.  Will this horrendous tragedy force the government to draw up a workable counter-terrorism strategy, especially one that trains the law-enforcement apparatus in dealing effectively with suicide attackers?

Sadly that is not possible without the involvement of the people and they can only be won over through democracy, an unadulterated and not the one contrived in Washington to the likes of President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, but to the satisfaction of the people of Pakistan. This democracy should also have meant more economic and social justice. Peace can certainly prevail and the fight against terrorists created first by the American and Pakistani government agencies using public funds, can be defeated.

Suppose instead of the present arrangement the persistent cum army chief had stepped down after his term and also ended his ever extending tenure as chief of the army and fought his election after a free and fair elections in January for the national assembly and provincial assemblies. Here too all the political parties including Nawaz Sharif should have been allowed to participate as others. This way extreme political opinion that seeks solutions through Islamic fundamentalism could have been isolated or made to participate in the democratic process. This could have positively encouraged the masses, the ultimate bedrock of any democratic system. Instead there is despondency all around.

BACK

When Terror Strikes
Ishtiaq Ahmed

THE utter savagery and mayhem let loose on October 18 by terrorists, possibly suicide bombers, on the convey carrying Ms Benazir Bhutto from Karachi Airport towards the mausoleum of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah after living for eight years in self-imposed exile remains unsurpassed in the history of terrorism of Pakistan. At least 140 people were killed and more than 500 injured, many of them sustaining very serious injuries.

Such a dastardly act can never be condoned under any circumstance. In this hour of need our sympathy must be with all those who were targets of that cowardly act and especially we should mourn the death and injured. Most of the dead were from ordinary families, possibly very poor families because they alone can risk their lives for a political cause or leader.

The return of Benazir Bhutto to Pakistan was reminiscent of the enthusiasm that her late father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, commanded from the ordinary, largely poor and neglected people of Pakistan after he launched his Pakistan People's Party in 1967. Each time Zulfikar Ali Bhutto came to Lahore the crowds would simply go mad with joy. I remember walking and running from the Lahore Railway Station to the Mall along side the truck carrying ZAB and other central leaders of the PPP. Nobody in those days knew anything about bomb blasts and suicide bombers, even though politics had increasingly been polarised into left and right.

There can be no denying that the overthrow of Mr Bhutto in 1977 and his execution later in 1979 was never accepted by the people of Pakistan as fair and legitimate. On the contrary his death made him a cult figure: as the champion of the oppressed. In a traditional society like Pakistan it is not surprising that the charisma of an individual can become a family preserve. That explains partly why Benazir Bhutto continues to enjoy popularity among the deprived and neglected masses of Pakistan.

Ms Bhutto is no patch on her father. She has made enough political compromises in her political career that any comparison with her father would be unfair to him. Also, although some of the allegations about corruption against her may be wrong, all the allegations need not necessarily be wrong. For example one item that continues to be mentioned is the palatial house in Surrey in the UK. It should be investigated properly.

Arranging for illicit money transfers through offshore companies in false names may be the hallmark of an accomplished mafia don but not that of a political leader representing the party of the poor and oppressed. We have no reason to condone corruption while in office. However, as long as an independent enquiry into allegations of corruption has not been made we have no right to pronounce Ms Bhutto guilty.

Having said that, it is in place to briefly review what happened on that fateful evening of October 18, 2007. According to her own claims, Benazir had been informed by friendly sources that four different groups -- the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban, one from Karachi and one by some powerful men connected to the state - would be waiting to assassinate her. She claimed also to have submitted a list of names of suspects that could be behind such a plot. The question then is: why did she persist in going out in a huge, slow-moving convoy instead of accepting the government offer to take a helicopter ride to her residence, this remains to be explained.

One can admire her for not being cowed down by the threats and deciding instead to demonstrate her popularity with the masses. But with her and her close associates inside the bullet-proof and possibly bomb-proof trailer the easiest targets were the police in the vehicles that formed a security cordon around her and the PPP Jannisars (literally those who dedicate their life to someone); a group of volunteers willing to lay down their lives for her. Benazir described them as devotees of democracy. I hope she was serious about that because otherwise the slaughter of so many innocent people just to manifest popular support seems to be a highly irresponsible act.

Ms Bhutto is a wealthy lady as are many of her landowning colleagues in the PPP. Perhaps some land from their big estates can be donated to the families of the deceased and injured. Donations from business and entrepreneurial elements in the PPP could also help establish a fund to help those who died or are disabled. The state should give generous support to the families of the policemen and other ordinary Pakistanis who died in those horrendous bomb blasts.

But more importantly, we need to ponder and reflect about the type of society we have become. Pakistan is undoubtedly a very dangerous place to be in but of those 160 million people who live there only a very, very small fraction can find escape to safer places elsewhere in the world. Therefore there is no choice but to make Pakistan safe for its citizens.

In all societies political disputes, conflicts and rivalries exist but the duty of the state and governments is to establish such rules of the game that all such tensions can be handled and resolved peacefully. Institutionalisation of democracy and democratic procedures, subordination of the military arm of the state to the civilian representatives of the people and rule of law for all and sundry are some of those norms and mechanisms that have been devised to furnish peaceful solutions and resolutions to problems and disputes.

One can disagree with Ms Bhutto and President Musharraf's pro-American leanings, but that is no justification for targeting them for assassination. Much worse is exploding bombs in places where entirely innocent people are peacefully congregated to celebrate or mark an occasion, as happened on October 18.

Also, the question is not being pro or anti-American but to give priority to the well-being of the people of Pakistan and ensuring their security against aggression. The United States is undoubtedly the most powerful state on earth and there is no reason to provoke unnecessary conflict with it.

In light of the great tragedy and suffering that has taken place in Karachi we should make another effort to make the democratic procedure work. All democrats, pacifists, humanists, true men and women of God who love life and respect it -- all have to raise a voice against terrorism from whichever quarter it originates.

[The author is a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), National University of Singapore on leave from the University of Stockholm, Sweden. Email: isasia@nus.edu.sg
Courtesy http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=77403]

BACK

An American dogma
Ishtiaq Ahmed

IT has happened twice again within a few days in between -- carnage of innocent people by gun-totting individuals in the United States. On October 10, 2007, a 14-year-old suspended student shot four people in his downtown high school in Cleveland before he killed himself. On October 7 in a small town in the state of Wisconsin a deputy sheriff pulled the trigger of a rifle and killed his ex-girlfriend, two childhood school friends, and three other young people including a 14-old girl. He lost his own life too in a shootout with the police.

I don't know how many times Americans as well as people from rest of the world have not been chocked to learn that some crazy fellow who had gone berserk killed several individuals in one go. The May 17, 2007, massacre at Virginia Tech University was one of the worst in recent times. Cho Seung-Hui, 23, a student of South Korean origin killed 32 people before killing himself.

How come a foreign student from South Korea whose mental health had already been diagnosed as pathological could acquire the gun and ammunition and kill 32 human beings? The reason is simply: the State of Virginia has the most lenient rules and regulation on the purchase of firearms and other types of weapons. Therefore Cho Seung-Hui could acquire his killing kit with ease and carry out a bloodbath.

The liberal gun laws that exist in the United States make possible easy access to sophisticated weapons. Some 30,000 people die of gun wounds every year in that country. It is not, however, simply easy availablity of firearms that has made violence endemic to American society but also a morbidly violent cultural ethos that is promoted through films, video games and even music.

It is to be remembered that the right to bear arms was granted to US citizens in 1791 when the Bill of Rights consisting of ten amendments to the US Constitution was ratified. The Second Amendment reads: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Now, the right to bear arms was adopted when the writ of the US government was limited to a few major towns. Not only Native Americans resisted encroachment on their lands, but armed adventurers and soldiers of fortunes in large numbers were on the prowl to make fortunes. Therefore bearing arms was perhaps a necessary evil at that time to protect oneself from constant threats around.

But that was a long time ago. Since then the federal and state governments must surely have acquired the capacity and capability to maintain law and order. After all the Americans despatch troops and armaments to all corners of the world on dubious claims of protecting US interests; how come they can't establish peace and security in their own domain through law-enforcing government agencies?

It does not make much sense that public opinion in the US still upholds the right to bear arms as a constitutional right that cannot be amended. The American mindset on this matter can only be described as dogmatic and unenlightened.

A dogma is an established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or an organisation that is considered authoritative and beyond dispute or doubt. One normally thinks of religious dogmas. All religions are built around certain dogmas that have to be believed as true. But outside of religion a dogma prevailing in social and political life despite all the evidence that proves it fallacious casts great doubt on the claim that laws in democracy are based on rational criteria.

In any civilised society one would expect a dramatic change in public opinion on something as controversial as the right to possess firearms if constantly mounting evidence proves it wrong, but in the American context the polls that were conducted immediately after the carnage at Virginia Tech University suggested that a majority of Americans remain steadfast in their belief that the right to bear arms was virtually an irrevocable, sacred constitutional guarantee.

Some years ago, I received an online petition collecting signatures for a ban on firearms being sold to the public. I signed it with great enthusiasm, and since one could enter a comment added that the USA must give leadership to the whole world in this regard and ban the sale of weapons to private individuals.

To my very great surprise a barrage of emails began to arrive at my end from agitated Americans who took me to task for calling into question their constitutional right to defend with private weapons their life, liberty and indeed property. References were made to some studies, which supposedly confirmed that in those counties where the ban on arms was removed and citizens encouraged to keep weapons to ward off criminal attacks the actual crime rate declined. It was not difficult to make out that these letters were written by individuals who had been hired to attack any criticism of the so-called 'right to bear arms'.

I learnt to my great horror that the National Rifle Association is the single most powerful "non-profit organization" in the United States. It bases its political activity on gun ownership being a civil liberty protected by the Second Amendment. The non-profit designation of the American National Rifle Association is of course highly questionable but who can muster the temerity to question that?

We need to ponder why dogmas attain such power and authority. The answer seems to be that all dogmas, whether religious or secular, serve some worldly interests. In the case of secular dogmas there should be little doubt that the interests they serve have to be the interests of the powerful people in society. In the case of firearms sold to private individuals, there can be little doubt that it is a lucrative trade that brings profits to a whole range of actors -- the manufacturers of weapons, shopkeepers and clubs and other such organisations that glorify the gun culture.

President Bill Clinton started a campaign against the gun culture and some states did tighten the laws on the sale of arms, but he could not muster enough support against it to put an effective curb on it. When George W. Bush won the presidency opposition to the gun culture ceased altogether. That is so sad and tragic, like many other policies that have emanated from the Oval Office during his two terms.

[The author is a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), National University of Singapore on leave from the University of Stockholm, Sweden. Email: isasia@nus.edu.sg Courtesy News International Pakistan]

BACK

West Cannot Win a Third World War
Swaraj Singh

Recently, President Bush threatened to start a Third World War if Iran goes nuclear. Even though he tried to wiggle out of this statement, yet the fact remains that such a statement only reflects ignorance and arrogance. Usually, humility and knowledge go together; similarly, arrogance and ignorance stay together. It is quite obvious that President Bush has neither studied world history nor that he understands the present world situation.

If we analyze the causes of victory of the mainstream West in the two World Wars, then one thing becomes quite clear: in both wars, the balance of power was heavily tilted towards the dominant West. Let us take the example of the Second World War. There were two factors that played the most important role in the West’s victory. The first, a vast majority of the world’s population and resources were on its side. The second, Russia sided with the West in that war. Primarily, it was a war of the small countries, Germany and Japan, against the rest of the world. Even then, Germany was winning until it attacked Russia.

The history of the war, as always, is written by the victors. This certainly is not an impartial history as many intellectuals believe. When the world will see the end of Western domination, then the history of the last two centuries will be re-written. Answers to many questions can then be known. Some of these questions, which may be answered:

• What role did the Western intelligence play in convincing Germany to attack Russia?

• What are the true facts about the Holocaust?

• Were the Germans and Japanese really the bad guys and the Western allies the good guys?

• Did the victory of the allies prolong the Western domination for almost another century and give them an opportunity to over-utilize the resources of the planet and push it almost to extinction?

• Was the imposition of the state of Israel on the Arabs—that was the result of the victory in the Second World War—a good thing for the people of the world?

• In the Indian context, was the partition of India by the Western powers, a good thing for the people of the subcontinent?

• Who was the real patriot in India: Subash Chandra Bose—who supported the Germans and the Japanese, or the Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi—Jawaharlal Nehru couple—that supported the West?

Only an impartial history of the last two centuries will be able to answer all of these questions. More and more people have started questioning the view of the dominant West. These challenges to the Western interpretation of history are going to increase with the decline of the West.

The West has to understand one thing very clearly: it cannot win a Third World War. The likely scenario of the war is that the Western imperialist powers and Israel will be on one side and China, Russia, and the vast majority of the third world will be on the other side. India will be the swing state. Even if India joins the West, the balance of power will still be heavily tilted to the other side. Israel has become more of a liability, rather than an asset, for the West.

In Asia, Russia, China, Iran, and the majority of the Islamic countries definitely carry the balance. If Japan decides to join the West, then Korea will neutralize it. India will be unable to persuade a single bordering country to join the West against China. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Burma are not going to join India. If they are forced to take sides, then they are likely to join China. India will be completely isolated in South Asia.

China will carry Africa in a very big way; 48 countries out of 50 in Africa may side with China. In South America, except for Colombia, the West may not be able to persuade any country to join against China; a big majority will support China.

In Europe, none of the countries or a group of countries has the strength to stand up to Russia. Another unpleasant surprise for the West can come from Turkey. Turkey is extremely frustrated with the West. It has been a major NATO country, but it can shift its alliance any time. The PEW opinion survey showed that only 7% of the Turks have a favorable opinion of America.

The Indian ruling class should clearly understand that if they decide to join the West in an unnatural alliance, then most likely they are joining the losing side. The price India may end up paying for this blunder can be far more than what anybody can imagine.

[Sawraj Singh M.D. F.I.C.S. Chairman, Washington State Network for Human Rights]

BACK

Pakistan: People’s Party reaps publicity capital out of a tragedy

FOR Benazir Bhutto, the killing of 140 innocent persons and injuring another 500 when she landed after reaching an understanding with the army chief cum president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, there is whirlwind to reap in terms of publicity. In London before her departing for her home after eight years of self exile, she along with her party colleagues had carefully analysis the working of most prominent journalists and found who was against her and her party. The leaders were assigned the task of taking care of these journalists and win them over through all possible means. She no longer needs this to do. She is thronged and much sought out by the international and national press. She is refusing to grant exclusive interviews and even those granted are being ignored without even formal courtesy notice.

According to a report by Ansar Abbasi of the News International of Jung group, “The Pakistan People's Party (PPP) has decided to tame "targeted" journalists by exploiting the persuasive skills of a set of its leaders to mould the hard-hitting lot's opinion in its favour.”

Abbasi observes that the suicide attack on the welcoming reception of Benazir Bhutto's return from self-imposed exile made the top PPP leader a hot cake for the world media and sidelined issues that were to haunt her on her homecoming. In view of this the original media management strategy has temporarily taken the back seat as they are now more concerned about cashing in on what is at hand.

Benazir is unlikely to spare too much time for exclusive interviews for Pakistani journalists as she is currently relishing in the glory of massive commendation for her courage from the world leaders and even the UN Security Council and Dr Condi, who were also expressing condolences with her.

Earlier, the newspaper writes, “There was an extreme fear of media bashing of her and her PPP on two counts -- PPP decision to strike a deal with president General Pervez Musharraf with the blessing of the Americans and the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), which was issued accepting Benazir's demand for withdrawal of all corruption cases against her and her spouse in and out of Pakistan.”

Most of the targeted media people are from the private TV channels while a few are associated with influential Pakistani newspapers. Three leading anchorpersons of Geo News and at least one associated with Aaj were identified as trouble creators. A few journalists associated with The News were named amongst "others" while one was considered to be "militantly opposed" to the party's policies.

Before Benazir's return, different key journalists started receiving unusual courtesy calls from various PPP leaders. Amongst the callers included Asif Ali Zardari. Some of the journalists were also surprised to have received "Eid cake" from the PPP recently although the print and electronic media continued grilling its top leadership both for the NRO and deal with Musharraf.

In the changed situation, the PPP leader is extremely selective in her interaction with the media, particularly Pakistan's. However as a respected editor said that Benazir and her party would soon find themselves getting out of the present phase of fantasies and face the ground realities where the real issues would again crop up their ugly heads for both.

BACK