|
Some had
feared – while others had hoped – that General Pervez
Musharraf’s coup of October 12, 1999, would bring the
revolution of Kemal Ataturk to a Pakistan firmly in
the iron grip of mullahs. But years later a definitive
truth has emerged. Like the other insecure governments
before it, both military and civilian, the present
regime also has a single point agenda – to stay in
power at all costs. It therefore does whatever it must
and Pakistan falls further from any prospect of
acquiring modern values, and of building and
strengthening democratic institutions.
The
requirements for survival of the present regime are
clear: on the one hand the Army leadership knows that
its critical dependence upon the West requires that it
be perceived abroad as a liberal regime pitted against
radical Islamists. But, on the other hand, in actual
fact, to preserve and extend its grip on power, it
must preserve the status quo.
The
staged conflicts between General Musharraf and the
mullahs are therefore a regular part of Pakistani
politics. This September, nearly seven years later,
the religious parties needed no demonstration of
muscle power for winning two major victories in less
than a fortnight; just a few noisy threats sufficed.
From experience they knew that the Pakistan Army and
its sagacious leader – of “enlightened moderation”
fame – would stick to their predictable pattern of
dealing with Islamists. In a nutshell: provoke a
fight, get the excitement going, let diplomatic
missions in Islamabad make their notes and CNN and BBC
get their clips – and then beat a retreat. At the end
of it all the mullahs would get what they want, but so
would the General.
Examples abound. On 21st April 2000, General Musharraf
announced a new administrative procedure for
registration of cases under the Blasphemy Law. This
law, under which the minimum penalty is death, has
frequently been used to harass personal and political
opponents. To reduce such occurrences, Musharraf’s
modified procedure would have required the local
district magistrate’s approval for registration of a
blasphemy case. It would have been an improvement,
albeit a modest one. But 25 days later – on the 16th
of May 2000 – under the watchful glare of the mullahs,
Musharraf hastily climbed down: “As it was the
unanimous demand of the ulema, mashaikh and the
people, therefore, I have decided to do away with the
procedural change in the registration of FIR under the
Blasphemy Law”.
Another example. In October 2004, as a new system for
issuing machine readable passports was being
installed, Musharraf’s government declared that
henceforth it would not be necessary for passport
holders to specify their religion. Expectedly this was
denounced by the Islamic parties as a grand conspiracy
aimed at secularizing Pakistan and destroying its
Islamic character. But even before the mullahs
actually took to the streets, the government lost
nerve and the volte-face was announced on 24 March,
2005. Information Minister Sheikh Rashid said the
decision to revive the religion column was made else,
“Qadianis and apostates would be able to pose as
Muslims and perform pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia”.
But
even these climb downs – significant as they are – are
less dramatic than the astonishing recent retreat over
reforming the Hudood Ordinance, a grotesque imposition
of General Zia-ul-Haq’s government unparalleled both
for its cruelty and irrationality.
Enacted into the law in 1979, it was conceived as part
of a more comprehensive process for converting
Pakistan into a theocracy governed by Sharia laws.
These laws prescribe death by stoning for married
Muslims who are found guilty of extra-marital sex (for
unmarried couples or non-Muslims, the penalty is 100
lashes). The law is exact in stating how the death
penalty is to be administered: “Such of the witnesses
who deposed against the convict as may be available
shall start stoning him and, while stoning is being
carried on, he may be shot dead, whereupon stoning and
shooting shall be stopped”.
Rape
is still more problematic. A woman who fails to prove
that she has been raped is automatically charged with
fornication and adultery. Under the Hudood Law, she is
considered guilty unless she can prove her innocence.
Proof of innocence requires that the rape victim must
produce “at least four Muslim adult male witnesses,
about whom the Court is satisfied” who saw the actual
act of penetration. Inability to do so may result in
her being jailed, or perhaps even sentenced to death
for adultery.
President and Chief of Army Staff General Musharraf,
and his Citibank Prime Minister, Shuakat Aziz,
proposed amending the Hudood Ordinance. They sent a
draft for parliamentary discussion in early September,
2006. As expected, it outraged the fundamentalists of
the MMA, the main Islamic parliamentary opposition.
MMA members tore up copies of the proposed amendments
on the floor of the National Assembly and threatened
to resign en masse. The government cowered abjectly
and withdrew.
Musharraf’s government proved no more enlightened, or
more moderate or more resolute and behaved no
differently from the more than half a dozen civilian
administrations, including two terms of Benazir Bhutto
as Prime Minister and several ‘technocrat’ regimes.
None made a serious effort to confront or reform these
laws.
But
the pattern is broader then deference to the mullahs.
General Musharraf has been willing to use the iron
fist in other circumstances. Two examples stand out:
Waziristan and Balochistan. Each offers instruction.
In
2002, presumably on Washington’s instructions, the
Pakistan Army established military bases in South
Waziristan which had become a refuge for Taliban and
Al Qaeda fleeing Afghanistan. It unleashed artillery
and US-supplied Cobra gunships. By 2005 heavy fighting
had spread to North Waziristan and the army was bogged
down.
The
generals, safely removed from combat areas, and busy
in building their personal financial empires, ascribed
the resistance to “a few hundred foreign militants and
terrorists”. But the Army was taking losses (how
serious is suggested by the fact that casualty figures
were not revealed), soldiers rarely ventured out from
their forts, morale collapsed as junior officers
wondered why they were being asked to attack their
ideological comrades – the Taliban – at American
instruction. Reportedly, local clerics refused to
conduct funeral prayers for soldiers killed in action.
In
2004, the army made peace with the militants in South
Waziristan. It conceded the territory to them, which
had made the militants immensely stronger. A similar
“peace treaty” was signed on 1 September 2006 in the
town of Miramshah, in North Waziristan, now firmly in
the grip of the Pakistani Taliban.
The
Miramshah treaty met all demands made by the
militants: the release of all jailed militants;
dismantling of army checkpoints; return of seized
weapons and vehicles; the right of the Taliban to
display weapons (except heavy weapons); and residence
rights for fellow fighters from other Islamic
countries. As for “foreign militants” – who Musharraf
had blamed exclusively for the resistance, the
militants were nonchalant: we will let you know if we
find any! The financial compensation demanded by the
Taliban for loss of property and life has not been
revealed, but some officials have remarked that it is
“astronomical”. In turn they promised to cease their
attacks on civil and military installations, and give
the army a safe passage out.
While
the army has extricated itself, the locals have been
left to pay the price. The militants have closed
girls’ schools and are enforcing harsh Sharia laws in
all of Waziristan, both North and South. Barbers have
been told ‘shave and die’. Taliban vigilante groups
patrol the streets of Miramshah. They check such
things as the length of beards, whether the “shalwars”
are worn at an appropriate height above the ankles,
and attendance of individuals in the mosques.
And
then there is Balochistan. Eight years ago when the
army seized power, there was no visible separatist
movement in Balochistan, which makes nearly 44% of
Pakistan’s land mass and is the repository of its gas
and oil. Now there is a full blown insurgency built
upon Baloch grievances, most of which arise from a
perception of being ruled from Islamabad and of being
denied a fair share of the benefits of the natural
resources extracted from their land.
The
army has spurned negotiations. Force is the only
answer: “They won’t know what hit them”, boasted
Musharraf, after threatening to crush the insurgency.
The Army has used everything it can, including its
American supplied F-16 jet fighters. The crisis
worsened when the charismatic 80-year old Baloch
chieftain and former governor of Balochistan, Nawab
Akbar Khan Bugti, was killed by army bombs. Musharraf
outraged the Baloch by calling it “a great victory”.
Reconciliation in Balochistan now seems, at best, a
distant dream.
Musharraf and his generals are determined to stay in
power. They will protect the source of their power –
the army. They will accommodate those they must – the
Americans. They will pander to the mullahs. They will
crush those who threaten their power and privilege,
and ignore the rest. No price is too high for them.
They are the reason Pakistan fails. |