Pakistan at the Crossroad
Crisis of Democracy & Trial of Military Leadership

On Oct. 12, 1999, the Pakistan Army leadership dismissed the pseudo-democratic rule of Nawaz Sharif and took over hold of the country. Such a martial changeover is 4^th in the entire 52-year political history of Pakistan. Contrary to what occurred in the past, the army takeover this time is exceptional in that military leadership acted collectively in absence of chief and the move can not be attributed the action of one single person. It was also to counter the deposed premier’s plot to tear apart the Constitution, create rift within the army and trigger civil war. Pakistan has not faced such a grave danger in its entire history. It was with utmost sagacity that the military leadership countered the danger by keeping its ranks close and without shedding a drop of blood.

Dismissal - The National Response

The Central Shura of Jama‘at-e-Islami Pakistan which was busy in political deliberations at the time (Oct. 11-13, 1999) in Lahore, made well-considered observations concerning the army action and the problems the nation faced:

After having destroyed or controlled all the important constitutional organs of the State, the Nawaz Sharif government embarked upon the dangerous game of political intervention in the most basic and sensitive institution ¾ the Army - intending to create rift and division within it. This game has culminated in the sad but logical consequences, and the army having dismissed the federal and provincial governments of Nawaz League has taken over the authority. The ousted government, which because of its anti-Shari’ah and anti-Constitutional activities, staking the country’s integrity in the name of friendship with the US and India and its taking the country to the verge of bankruptcy as a result of mishandling the economic affairs, had lost any constitutional, moral and political right of governance. The nation has taken a sigh of relief. However, the manner in which this whole change has been brought about, is a matter of anxiety for the nation. Protection of the institution of the army is necessary for the security of the country; but side by side, it is also essential that the country’s ideology is upheld, and according to the aspirations of the people, Islamic constitutional system, full regard for basic rights and the rule of law are also ensured.

In the circumstance the Central Shura of Jama‘at-e-Islami Pakistan offers thanksgiving prayers to Almighty Allah for deliverance from Nawaz Sharif government, and considers it the outcome of the mass movement in the country. The Shura also expects from the army and its leadership that full wisdom and skill will be employed in following a path without any delay, that leads to make fully effective, in letter and spirit, the country’s Constitution which is based on Islam, democracy and the principle of federation.

The Central Shura of Jama‘at-e-Islami Pakistan feels it necessary to express its principle position. That the country has experienced Martial Law at various intervals and that system has proved no solution to its problems. Similarly, Jama‘at also declares that within the tested and corrupt political leadership, mere change of faces will not help the nation get out of the mire in which the selfish political jugglers and rope-dancers have plunged it into. Also, the technocrats, who neither enjoy popular support, nor are responsible before the people, cannot provide proper leadership. The military leadership should, in the light of past experience, take full cognizance of the fact that the two ruling families of the past - Bhutto and Sharif families - who have set new records of fascism and corruption, were the products of Martial Law eras. If some similar type of people are now to come forward and lead, then neither the results nor popular reaction will be different from the past.

Urgency demands a type of interim government whose loyalty with Islam and Pakistan and whose capability and spotless character are relied upon and regarded by the nation, and which through constitutional provisions is given chance and enough period that it completes ruthless accountability process concerning all past rulers, politicians and senior functionaries and clear the political arena of all filth. That it effectively reforms the election system and its machinery so that free and just elections could be held which are truly reflective of public opinion. That it rids the country of the landed aristocracy, the capitalists and the special interest mafia groups who stand parasitically imposed on the national propitiously. Further that the elected members should conform to the provisions of constitutional Articles 62 and 63. Solution to the country’s problems will be possible only that such a leadership emerges from amongst the people, is accountable before the people, fulfills the constitutional criteria and enjoys full confidence of the nation.

We pray to Almighty Allah to save at the earliest the country from this sensitive situation, and those who are now responsible of the state affairs are bestowed with Divine guidance that they follow peoples’ wishes, act in the constitutional spirit and keeping in view its true objectives, establish and interim system that realizes the above said targets. We also earnestly appeal the people that, for their true and cherished goal of Islamic democratic system, they continue their struggle within the bonds of constitution and law, so that Pakistan achieves its basic existential objective and stays protected against all high-handed excesses and intrigues of the enemy. (Jama‘at-e-Islami Resolution, Oct. 13, 1999).

The way the whole nation has expressed its satisfaction over the dismissal of Nawaz government and the solidarity of the army and the manner in which every segment of the society has approved the action, exposed that the ousted government had lost the nation’s confidence. People feel the army did what the masses wished. The Western journalists, analysts and the governments, which are critical of military intervention, feel obliged to confess that the Pakistani nation has welcomed the step and has distanced itself from the dangerous game of the ousted government that it was playing with the national security.

This popular support amounts to a referendum against the 31-month bad performance of Nawaz regime. The reaction that surfaced as a result of retreat from Kargil and which was gradually shaping into a national movement, abruptly climaxed to a drop-scene by Nawaz government’s lust for power and adventurism. Consequently, the political scene has altogether changed. The suspense in giving an alternative arrangement by a diffident military regime is clear evidence that the dismissal was not a pre-conceived action. Rather, the army had to face a sudden and an extraordinary situation.

Need for a New Strategy:

The responsibility that the army has now accepted demands that matters be settled after thorough consideration, consultation, keeping in view experiences of the past and the challenges ahead. The targets spelled out by the Chief Executive in his second speech (Oct. 17) truly make a national agenda, but all these challenges cannot be solved overnight, nor the military leadership could be expected to do so. Whereas it is necessary to have clear understanding of the problems, it is also imperative that the need of appropriate strategy and working machinery is also realized. It should also be clear what period would be required to achieve the targets. The legacy of the military involvement in political and economic matters to save the country and the nation under extraordinary conditions is acceptable to the extent that having brought a timely correction, the army gets engaged in its real task of the country’s defence and let the new civil set up work for the solution of the long-term problems. That is why the constitutional experts and Supreme Courts of Pakistan have only accepted such interventions as temporary steps to introduce alternative system. Rather than announcing such acts as abrogation or negation of the Constitution, these have been accepted as temporary constitutional deviations. Availing that relaxation, the military leadership has placed certain parts of the Constitution in abeyance and has indicated to run the affairs closer to it. They have promised that fundamental rights, political activities, freedom of press and the courts of law are allowed to work as usual and as provided in the Constitution. So much so that the Assemblies and the Senate will also remain in temporary suspension. Decision is to be taken as the situation warrants, whether to re-activate these bodies or go for fresh elections. The strategy that has been adopted allows revolutionary actions, yet ensures constitutional continuity. This is very important, because once the constitution is abrogated, preparation of a new one with total consensus is extremely difficult and full of dangers.

Failure of the Democratic System: The Fault-lines:

The first question to be thoroughly considered is why the democratic system fails again and again. Why a situation emerges after a given period that army steps in and winds up the political chess mat. Quite understandably, the conditions which resulted in the present military take over are unique. However, the changing hands between the civil and military governments over the past 52 years demand deep thinking and an in-depth analysis.

Looking at the political struggle of the Pak-India sub-continent, one finds that Muslim League was instituted in 1906, but it took quite some time before becoming a truly popular Muslim force. When Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah took its leadership in 1936, the party was mostly representing specific interest groups. The untiring strenuous efforts of the mature leadership of Quaid-e-Azam made Muslim League a popular force, which then set for itself in 1940, a clear goal in the form of independent Pakistan. With Partition becoming a reality and independence approaching, all types of elements rushed to join Muslim League, but they had little in common, nor were they associated with the masses, as the original leadership was.

When Pakistan came into being, Quaid-e-Azam and his reliable companions could not get enough time which was required to re-construct the new state on fresh foundations and according to the objectives in sight. Quaid-e-Azam breathed his last in one year and Liaquat Ali Khan was caused to give way to the plotters, who grabbed the reins of power through a retrogressive step.

In a matter of few years the true representatives of the Muslim masses were deprived and state authority taken in hand by the bureaucracy and the self-seeking elements. They were only suspending governments, abrogating constitutions, silencing the press, strangling political freedom in the name of Safety Act and fanning regional bigotry and prejudices. The first Constitution took nine years and even that was annulled within thirty months and military dictatorship imposed. The foreign powers, more particularly the United States played a special role in this anarchy and got Pakistan tightly bound in military pacts and world imperialist order. The sincere workers of the Pakistan Movement either had to leave Muslim League or were made ineffective. The party leadership got transferred to landed elites, capitalists and the civil and military bureaucracy. This is that "Qabza Group" that got hold of Muslim League and its derivatives like Jinnah League, Awami League, Republican Party, Convention League, People’s Party, Nawaz League etc. This is the mimic group that every now and then changes the garb and controls the country politics.

Political analysts estimate that these are a few thousand individuals from hardly a few hundred families who have been mastering not only the politics, but trade, industry, banking, administration, police and military during the 52-years history of Pakistan. Democracy thus got hanged at the altar of family politics and a governance based on self-interest. The political parties herded the people like sheep, but never established any political organization based on people’s strength, which could ensure participation and position for all eligible, and work within a system of consultation and accountability. This is the fundamental cause that kept the country deprived of the democratic culture and politics and government remained exclusive playground for a few families and opportunists. The administrative machinery, the police, the judiciary and even the army have been used for personal/group interests. The system could never see the rule of law, the consultation, the responsibility and accountability that make the essence of democracy. Constitution was drafted, but never respected. Tradition of constitutionalism could thus never be established.

Alongwith this political rot, another cause of decay is the rebellious deviation from the objective and vision, which made the moving force for the creation of Pakistan. More than a territory, Pakistan provides the sign of an ideology and a way of life. The great struggle made by the Muslims of the sub-continent was for the revival of their Deen and to frame afresh their lives in accordance with their faith, values and Islamic culture and civilization. Quaid-e-Azam said in clear words that our real aim was to shape the life system in conformity with Islam. That was the reason that even those Indian Muslims who knew their areas will remain out of Pakistan, offered sacrifices, so that a centre and abode is provided for Islam and the Muslims of the sub-continent to get a chance for resurgence. It is only Islam that gives rise to emotions that united the nation like a lead wall. When this bond is weakened, chain effect of division disintegrates the Millat.

Islam and democracy were the dynamic forces that gave life to the freedom movement. This was, and could be, the only ultimate goal, whose love could lead Pakistan to the highest stages of development and progress. Today, after a lapse of 52 years and having lost half of the country, when one pauses, recounts the past and considers the future course, one feels it a necessity to realize that only Islam and true democracy provide security for the existence and progress of the country.

Imperatives for Democracy: Jama‘at’s Stand:

With the establishment of Pakistan, Jama‘at-e-Islami has concentrated all its efforts on the realization of these targets alongwith its call towards the Islamic global message. When the 1962 Martial Law was lifted, Sayyid Abul A‘ala Maududi started the political campaign by presenting the nation the principles which provide permanent foundations and a working system on which the existence and progress depends. He said:

When a country is governed disregarding the natural principles of justice and rationality, the result is repeated errors, mistakes and stumbling, leading the country to such an end. So, I warn you in clear words that unless the democratic system is not based on correct, sound, natural and rational principles, the country will be prone to dangers. If we do not wish to make the blunder to destroy through our own deeds the God-gifted free state that we have after around two hundred years of slavery and thus invite some wrath, then we must straight-away accept the principles that:

1. Country belongs to the people. It is no property of some persons, group or clan. Therefore, its system should be framed and run as the people wish;
2. Only those should be allowed to rule who have been elected by the people through their free choice;
3. The only valid election will be one in which every adult citizen has the right to vote. Indirect election is only an instrument of dictatorship;
4. The election engineered through money, coercion, rigging and intervention of the state officials, is no election at all. It makes no difference whether people have or do not have the right to vote in such a system;
5. The state functitonaries, both civil and military, have no right to rule. They are to administer state affairs under the command of public representatives;
6. All authority should rest with the representative parliament or assembly whatsoever. No one is to sit as judge over it;
7. For smooth running of the country’s system, the press is to be given freedom, undue control over means of information and communication avoided, public kept properly informed of the country’s situation and people be allowed to listen to every view point and to form opinion through free dialogue;
8. The state system should be based on the ideology that is accepted by the majority. The minority view-holders should be able to avail all opportunities to gather public support and come to power. Never should a situation be allowed to prevail, that people feel pressed to look for extra-constitutional means for change.

Pakistan today is once again perplexed looking for some political way out in future. Every sincere and wise person would agree that the above given eight points provide the foundation of sound re-structuring of the house.

To complete this discussion of the principles and true foundations of democracy, one specific aspect needs a little more elaboration: The rule of the spirit of law means equal rights of citizens and their protection, free judiciary and respect for a system of balance of authority. This is the frame work within which, formation or ousting of the government with popular will, existence of an effective accountability mechanism at all levels - the parliament, the judiciary, people’s court in the form of elections - provide security for healthy democratic system. For the civil administration and army, to refrain from indulging in politics and to stay alert only to accomplish their own assigned tasks is also an important component of it. All these elements brought together make the democratic process effective and fruitful.

If the above-said principles are not regarded, then an authority emerging out of some election drama is no democracy. No doubt, elections are an important pillar and a clear sign of the present day democracy, but the electoral system itself needs to be effective, non-partisan and transparent. Election system should deliver the objectives for which it is constituted. The dilemma of democracy in Pakistan is that for well over 23 year (up to 1970) no national elections were held, and when the process was started, the whole system was so deformed that it was no more the true expression of public opinion, rather it become a tool to make the people’s will ineffective. Money, bluff and rigging thrive more in such elections. Starting from the preparation of voters’ lists right up to the act of voting, political and economic mafias control all steps, which shape the affairs as they like. Over and above is the interference of government machinery. Then the single representative constituency approach of the British parliamentary system is so inadequate that it never helps reflection of true public opinion at the parliament forum. That is why 72 countries of the modern world have opted for proportionate representation system, through which the parliament can be made to look more and better represented. Even in the United Kingdom, partial introduction of the system is being talked about. The 1999 elections for the European Union held in UK were totally based on the principle of proportionate representation.

To establish a sound democratic system demands that structural changes be made in the electoral system. The proportionate representation as a whole, or at least for 50 per cent seats, should be adopted. The Election Commission should be absolutely free and constituted (appointed) in consultation with the opposition - to ensure maximum national consent. Voters’ lists be prepared honestly and updated every six months. The voter’s identity card must have the picture or signature or thumb impression. The whole system be computerized. The Constitutional articles 62 and 63, which are as important as any other provision concerning elections, should be put to meaningful practice. The decay of the democratic system is much attributed to the inadequate and rotten election system and no reforms will be effective without its correction. History tells that Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tito and even many Third World rulers including the Arabs and the Muslim countries reached the seat of power by getting 90 - 98 per cent public votes. Yet, their such elections were never considered as the democratic process. The same is Pakistan’s problem. Electoral system here has never been able to give people’s representation in true form. The country, therefore, could not have a democratic leadership.

Democracy in Pakistan: 1985 and Onwards:

Having outlined the basic principles, let’s examine in brief how all through our political history, and particularly after 1985 in the new democratic era, all assemblies and governments have trampled mercilessly the very roots of democracy. This post 1985 leadership did all what it could only to establish personal or family kingdom, all done in the name of democracy, overlooking the people’s rights, being disloyal to national aspiration and considerations, de-stabilizing the constitutional state organs and plundering national wealth mercilessly and unhesitatingly. No effort was made here to institute on sound footing an Islamic welfare state, nor to strengthen the democratic base. Both the big political parties (Pakistan Muslim League and Pakistan Peoples Party) followed the same strategy. In both cases the power was centralized in one family, which tried to be master of every bit. Both the families were the products of Martial Law and spared no effort to strangle democracy. The Constitution was badly deformed and its built-in balance of power was upset. They never believed in the Constitution or rule of law. The system followed was based on personal loyalty. The freedom and respect of every state institution was crushed. Both parties tried to surpass the other to set new records of corruption. The nation, and even the generations to come, have been entangled in the slavery of indebtedness, just for their own luxury and pleasure. Both constructed palatial mansions and established economic empires spending billions of rupees. This is the performance of these so-called democratic elements, which have shattered the public confidence and disappointed people to the limits of frustration. So much so that people resorted to suicides and self-immolation.

The cruelty of these so-called democratic regimes is not confined only to making the nation slave to external loan. More than that the external powers got so much involved in the state affairs and politics that Pakistan’s security and freedom were at stake. Whether Sharif or Benazir, both such ished links and relations with the US and India, which were against the security, freedom and honor of the country. An American analyst bitterly notes that where Indian leadership never visited Washington to seek help for their rule, every Pakistan government did make frequent visits for the purpose. The way Benazir approached Rajiv, Bush and Clinton to prolong her rule and similarly the manner in which Nawaz Sharif, his younger brother and ISI Chief Khwaja Ziauddin begged Washington and invited the US to intervene, was not only degrading for the national honor but amounted to a death blow to the national security and by all counts an act of high treason. At the instigation of Nusrat Bhutto, Benazir sought help from Rajiv against its own army; Nawaz Sharif and his troupe committed the same crime by seeking protection from Clinton and his administration. For the sake of record, let us indicate some evidences:

• Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif promised to sign CTBT and gradually wind up the nuclear program. The issue was delinked from Indian decision on CTBT and the freedom of Kashmir. US was requested to pressurize army;
• They were fully active to establish friendly relations and trade with India at all costs and to accept its regional supremacy;
• They joined the American global venture against the Islamic revival movements and promised to control these movements and more particularly Jihadi groups in the name of terrorism. Taliban, who were first of all recognized by Pakistan, were specially targeted. Both the brothers used provocative language in this respect;
• To reach some agreement over Kashmir with India, secret and backdoor silent diplomacy was employed. By retreating from Kargil, non-reversible loss was inflicted upon Pakistan, and the Jihad Movement in Kashmir;
• Pakistan Army is like a thorn in the eyes of United States and India. India termed it a rogue army and propelled a worldwide propaganda against it. At the same time Nawaz government and its cronies were busy in the dirty game of putting the whole Kargil dirt on the army’s head, attempting to create internal rifts within its ranks and plotting to impose upon it, hand picked stooges. The ISI Chief Khwaja Ziauddin informed not only the CIA but the whole US leadership how fundamentalist the Pakistan Army was and sought the help of liberal elements to counter it.

If summarized in one sentence: the so-called democratic leadership rebelled against Pakistan and its ideology and agreed to act for the US World Order and submit before India; all to make some personal gains. That is why, US and India tried their best that this clique stays in power. The day this band was ousted, the nation paid thanks to Allah for deliverance, whereas the enemy quarters were lamenting. "They planned, and Allah planned (as well to counter them); And Allah is the best planner." ( Qur’an 3:54).

JN Dixit, the ex-Secretary, Foreign Affairs and NN Vohra, ex-Security Adviser, (both of India) visited America for about a month. Their central targets was to give permanent status to the LoC in Kashmir and to ensure the stay and strength of Nawaz government. Shaheen Sehbai, the daily Dawn’s representative reports:

India would offer Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif "anything in the world" to keep him in power as the alternative could be a fundamentalist Taliban regime. "We are ready to offer him the world, if our interests are not compromised," said JN Dixit and NN Vohra.

They conveyed the very strong sense that India was prepared to accept the LoC as the recognized international boarder. (Dawn, Aug. 6, 1999).

Concerning Kashmir issue, the Indian position was made clear by both (Dixit and Vohra) in the following words:

India had one partition and it did not want more. Pakistan had two partitions. We will never allow the germs of another partition to grow by accepting that Kashmir could cede away from India. (Dawn, Aug. 6, 1999).

Shahbaz Sharif visited America to avail support and to ensure Washington of full submission in all matters. He settled all matters with lightening speed and haste. The whole game was to prepare America for support under the pretext of the danger and bugbear of fundamentalism. Shaheen Sehbai writes:

The US fears that after Nawaz, the fundamentalists and the ‘Jehadis’ would take over and in that situation they do not know who would control the nuclear buttons." ( "Damage Control by Junior Sharif," Dawn, Sept. l0, 1999).

It was not only Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif, but also Benazir and other leaders of opposition who were circumambulating Washington to appease America that they will be truly obedient. America, however, found Nawaz a better option and exerted its full weight for him, because he was thought to be better fitting the US designs. See what memorable deed the intimate friend of Nawaz Sharif and Chief of ISI Khwaja Ziauddin did. Shaheen Sehbai in his report writes:

The head of ISI has briefed a key congressional intelligence committee on the threat of religious extremism in Pakistan … Congressional sources told Dawn that the picture presented by the ISI chief before the intelligence committee was so grim and scary that many members supported the public statement issued by the US warning against a military coup in Pakistan. Basically, these sources said, the US was not worried about an army coup but it was scared of a takeover by "fundamentalist Islamic radicals in the Pakistan army." Diplomatic observers said the US worked with army dictatorships around the world and it was comfortable with monarchies and autocratic governments in many parts of the world as long as they were on the US side." (Dawn, Sept. 26, 1999).

In this background, the warning against any step of the Pak army and its wrath over the military action of Oct. 12 can be well understood. Information reveals that in the said meetings and parleys, US clearance was obtained to sack General Parvez Musharraf and post General Ziauddin to head the army.

The American leadership now tries to conceal its plan and attitude. However, its first reaction and threats show its true face. Clinton, Madame Albright and Robin Rafael of the US Foreign Affairs were quite bitter in opposing the military action and ordered that civil government be restored. They threatened to use economic and other sanctions. Other Western powers and the Commonwealth followed the same line. The New York Times took the lead, when in its editorial of October 13, 1999, it declared the action dangerous and a cause of alarm and then issued its decree:

The United States and other nations must demand the Pakistan army to ensure safety of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and to restore him to power and respect "Pakistani liberties." (Dawn, Oct. 14, 1999).

If the Pakistani nation finds no other proofs concerning the betrayal of Pakistan by Nawaz government and its connivance and joining hands with US and India, the few evidences noted are sufficient to arrive at proper conclusion.

The International Game & Challenges for Pakistan:

The real challenge before the Pakistani nation today is, whether it will itself be capable to protect its power, its freedom, the ideology and the country’s security, or it takes its hands off from building its fate only for the sake of a few bucks and gets frightened and brow-beaten by the external bluffs. The way the nation has welcomed the military action gives good promise that it will not compromise at any cost, its freedom and ideology. This confidence is further strengthened from the fact that General Musharraf is the first army chief who had received no training in the United States. Yet, looking at the extent of external pressure, it will be timely to caution that to stick to the cause with firmness but applying wisdom and shrewdness is what is required in the situation and is also the longing and resolve of the Pakistani Millat. Friendship with America, all right, but subservience, not at all. This decision is to be taken right today and then stick to it firmly, is the way to freedom and honor.

It will be appropriate if analyzed: Why at this juncture, America is crying so loud for democracy and feels sacred of military rule? In fact, America’s own track record is eye-opener in this respect.

A basic principle of UN Charter, rather one on which the Charter is founded, is non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. Every state and nation is free how, and on what principles and values, it shapes its political, economic and cultural system. There is plurality and variety of ideologies, civilizations, religions and cultures in the world. It warrants that every nation and country runs its affairs according to its beliefs, values and founding principles. No external intervention can be allowed in it. An international law specialist expresses the Third World sentiments as follows:

The unpopularity of intervention among the new states of Africa and Asia does not simply stem from the behavior of the two super powers. Their hostility is directed towards the concept of intervention itself as it implies the existence of a hierarchy of states in fundamental conflict with the principle that all independent states are legally sovereign and equal. Ex-colonial states, in particular, resent an institution, which appears to confer special rights on major powers in the interest of international order. To many non-aligned states intervention smacks of neo-colonialism and imperialism." ("Force, Intervention and Internal Conflict," Adrian Guelke, The Use of Force in International Relations, ed. by FS Northedge, Faber and Faber, London, 1974, p.120).

Alongwith this principle, there is need to keep in view the double standards applied by US and other Western powers. They care least for democracy or basic human rights when their own adjunct and obedient governments crush the democratic values, deny the basic rights, usurp freedom of the people, tolerate no opposition and mercilessly use the state power against their own people. But when the American and Western interests receive a blow, they at once recall the need for democracy, start condemning military regimes and talk about economic and other sanctions.

Those who keep an eye on world affairs, know what the US role has been in bringing about military revolutions in the 20^th century. Nineteen of those countries, which were free before 1917, faced military coup. Of the 28 states, which achieved freedom between 1917 and 1955, 13 faced army take over. Most of these changes came with the blessings of United States and Western powers. (See: The Man on Horseback, SE Finer, London, 1968).

The Game of Nations (New York, 1969), by the CIA high official Miles Copeland, tells of the American role in military coups from Syria to Egypt, and that how the American thinkers presented the military as a modernizing agent. The US Defence establishment and the CIA presented the philosophy that to combat Communist revolution, West-friendly army take overs are necessary. The military rulers were openly supported, given aid and honored for over three decades according to that thinking. Even today if a tyrant and oppressing ruler or king sides with America, he is labeled with no fault at all. The bad boys are only those who dare to act against the US interests. The Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussain, Housni Mubarak, Suharto, Marcos and tens of other such rulers stayed in power with American help. And when they were found no more useful, were immediately dubbed dictators and killers of the democracy, while America stood Mr. Clean democrat.

Even in Pakistan, it is no secret that who had the working hand behind General Muhammad Ayub’s Martial Law? In case of General Yahya Khan, the historic evidence is on record that while the army took over on March 25, 1969, but the General received official American congratulation well in advance i.e. on March 24. (See: "General Mohammad Yahya Khan: Shakhsiat aur Kirdar," Muneer Ahmad, Takhleeqat, Lahore, p.59).

There is great wailing and lamentation concerning violence, use of force, intolerance and fundamentalism. But what has been and is the American record in this respect, is like an open book. The official report of the Committee of Members for Foreign Affairs, presented to the US Secretary of State, and which now forms the basis of new diplomacy, clearly mentions:

In pursuit of one international goals, we have developed an arsenal of instruments more varied than ever before. They include: all the tools of traditional diplomacy, international law, intelligence, political action, technical assistance, and various types of foreign economic aid, military aid programs, information and psychological programs, educational exchange, cultural programs, and more recently, MEASURES TO COUNTER INSURGENCY MOVEMENTS. Most of these fall outside the older definition of diplomacy; but all of them must be considered actual or potential elements of United States programs. Together they constitute what is here called "New Diplomacy." (Committee on Foreign Affairs Personnel, Personnel for the New Diplomacy: A Report to the Secretary of State, Washington DC 1962, pp.1-8).

During the second half of the 20^th century all the Western powers, and particularly the United States advanced their foreign policy objectives by resorting to interventions, destabilizing unwanted regimes and other such open and covert activities. Senator Frank Church, who was Chairman of the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence, notes the American covert and subversive activities in the following words:

We deposed the Government of Guatemala when its leftist leanings displeased us; we attempted to ignite civil war against Suekarno in Indonesia; we intervened to restore the Shah to his throne, after Musaddaq broke the monopoly group of British petroleum over Iranian oil; we attempted to launch a counter-revolution in Cuba through abortive landing of an army of exiles at the Bay of Pigs; we even conducted a secret war in Laos, paying Meo tribesmen and Thai mercenaries to do our fighting there. All these engagements were initiated without the knowledge or consent of Congress. No country was too small, no foreign leader too trifling, to escape our attention. We sent a deadly toxin to the Congo for the purpose of injecting Lumumba with a fatal disease; we armed local dissidents in the Dominica Republic, knowing their purpose to be the assassination of Trujillo; we participated in a military coup, overturning the very government we were pledged to defend in Vietnam; and when Premier Diem resisted he and his brother were murdered by the very Generals to whom we gave money and support; for years we attempted to assassinate Fidel Castro and other Cuban leaders. Various plots spanned three administrations and involved an extended collaboration between the CIA and the Mafia. ( See: Senator Frank Church, in introduction to The Intelligence Community: History, Organisation and Issues, ed. by Tyrus G Fein, Public Document Series, New York, 1977, pp. x-xi.).

The record of this glorious and democratic-loving American attitude, narrated by its own responsible people, is more than enough to rebound the American campaign and baseless venture against the Jihadi Movements, taken up in the name of terrorism today. And the bandwagon includes people like Nawaz Sharif, Benazir and many other Muslim and Arab politicians.

Miles Coupland openly confesses in another book that America was active not only in Vietnam, but also in the Arab world, Pak-India sub-continent, Africa and Latin America. He says:

The Agency’s specialists in clandestine warfare, however, concentrated on a Third World - not only on Vietnam, but on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Indo-Pakistan conflict, racial strife in Africa and growth of Maoist influence in parts of South America. ( See: Without Cloak or Dagger: The Truth About the New Espionage, Miles Coupland, New York, 1974, pp.205-206).

This American record is really very dirty and cover a whole century. It has most recently been reviewed by the New York University’s renowned Prof. Noam Chomsky, in his brief book: The Umbrella of US Power (New York, 1999). The latest information ( Ref.: Washington Post, Oct. 20, 1999) is, that America, which is bent upon eliminating Pakistan’s nuclear capability in the name of non-proliferation, and which has (in spite of nuclear tests) lifted bans for India but retained for Pakistan, has itself planted covertly thousands of nuclear warheads in fifteen (15) countries.

To face these ferocious American and Western mischiefs, conspiracies and intrigues, one need to involve the help of Allah, take masses into confidence and to raise and mobilize the whole nation.

Agenda and the Required Strategy:

The experiments for democracy have failed in Pakistan, but same has been the fate of Martial Laws. To correct the affairs, military leaders stepped in three times in the past, but failed. General Ayub gave the slogan of economic progress and sought the country’s modernization through capitalistic liberalism. The result was dictatorial governance, limitation of freedoms, increase in economic inequities and a wave of regional hatred that could not sustain his powerful chair. He did not transfer power to the Speaker National Assembly as envisaged in his own drafted (1962) Constitution, and gave the reins to the army chief - General Yahya Khan - who was getting restless to grab power. General Yahya’s period came to the sorrowful end by breaking Pakistan in two pieces. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto started as Martial Law Administrator and in spite of having the 1973 Constitution, relied all along upon emergency. He also felt his chair was very strong, but soon the world witnessed that nothing was weaker than this chair. General Ziaul Haq apparently came in the background of a popular uprising, pledging to conduct elections in 90 days. As against Ayub’s liberal capitalism and Bhutto’s socialism, he chose the name of Islam. All these experiments bitterly failed and could not bring about any improvement. To the end, these regimes had to submit before the public protest.

The real cause of these failures is that while the military action counters immediate danger, the army cannot solve through some short cut, the most complex issues of social life. Military is trained and prepared for a specific purpose. That special capability and expertise is useful in the battlefield, but proves ineffective in addressing the issues of common life. The military discipline, which is its best resource, cannot exactly work in the more flexible civil matters. The same quality, which provides the strength in war, becomes misfit and hindering in the consultative democratic process.

And God forbid, if the army gets used to the lust of power, turns corrupted and is made controversial by indulging in political feuds, it loses its capability to discharge the defence responsibility. It is essential that army retains the character of being national and non-controversial. Every one should look to it with hope, place confidence in it and pray for it. If army get partisan, then who is to defend the country’s security and freedom? The present-day problems of the society demand specific preparation, education, expertise, vision and a continuous system of consultation, evaluation and accountability. These are certain principles of governance that have little relevance with the military book of action. That is why some 80 - 90 experiments of military rule during this century, have not been able to deliver any good in politics and economics. Almost all these rules face popular protest and reaction. A renowned historian and anthropologist Lewis Mumford quite elegantly notes in the last volume of his famous history of civilization - The Condition of Man:

Political society is like a cable composed of many strands: the twisting together of these different strands not merely increases its strength but its flexibility ... The cable itself is complex by nature; and the political knots cry from untying makes it more so: but one condition must always be preserved in sound politics - Alexander’s example of using the naked sword to clear the Gordian knot must not be resorted to. Any fool can solve the problems of political power by martial law, but only a food could mistake that process for Government." (The Condition of Man, Lewis Mumford, p.175).

Under the sentiments of sympathy and respect for the military leadership, it is incumbent to express that solution of the problems is not possible through Martial Law or army’s indulgence and interference in politics for long. At the moment, the nation stands derailed because of the stupidity, selfishness and incapability of some so-called democracy-lovers. Put it back on track and let it move through its own way of working. This is what is good for the nation and the country and will bring good name and praise for the army. To put the rail back on track, four steps are essential:

1. Impertinent, Widespread and Transparent Accountability:

That on the one hand fulfills the Islamic requirements of justice and on the other lets no one escapes who has plundered national wealth. The accountability should start from the top and should cover politicians, bureaucrats, army, police, administration, judiciary, traders, industrialists and ulema. A fully free and authorized machinery be set up immediately for this purpose availing services of the ex-judges of the Supreme Court whose trustworthiness and integrity should be above doubt. They be authorized to work out their regulatory system and should be provided necessary financial resources and honest supporting staff. This will enable them to undertake investigation and prosecution through their own free field staff and giving the respondent a set period to defend, settle the matters. The conventional legal procedure is time-consuming and very lenient for the culprit. This is one of the reasons why actions, by way of accountability in the past whatsoever, proved fruitless. If the process is started by employing proper persons, result can be seen in few months. The Islamic principle should be applied here, that any one living beyond his known means, should be compelled to prove his sources of income. Thus the evidence is upon the respondent and not on the claimant. Other world experiences may also be put to use. But this task is of priority one.

2. Getting the Economy out of Mire:

While on the one hand, misappropriation and corruption is to be uprooted, on the other, a new strategy is needed, which ensures common man’s participation in the economic activity, pave the way of progress through indigenous resources, and getting gradually rid of external loans, re-build the economy on the basis of self-reliance. If the vicious circle of loan-based economy is not broken in one go, nation shall never get out of the clutches of slavery. This is the moment of decision to be taken with firm resolve that Pakistan will not let its economy stand mortgaged in the hands of Western money-lenders. Doing away with interest based system is also needed. It is time to say good bye to credit-based economic strategy. God Almighty has bestowed this country with a human and material resource endowment which can make the economy very strong and progressive. But this needs new approach, confidence in the people, truthfulness about facts, austerity, hard work, living within means and a role-model of the leadership. If such decisions are not made at this juncture, it will be a tragedy.

3. National Security and Foreign Policy:

Without Kashmir Pakistan is incomplete ideologically and physically. The leadership have to support the freedom movement in Kashmir at all costs and have to guide it to success. The limits of friendship with India should be made quite clear in this respect. Without just solution of Kashmir problem, in accordance with the UN resolutions and aspirations of the people, no trade or friendship with India is possible. This is the national stand and no one has the right to budge an inch from it. While to sustain this position, there is need to have economic stability, also required is to preserve the defence capability and its further enhancement and strengthening. No compromise is acceptable on the nuclear program. As a responsible state, Pakistan will decide itself how this capability is to be used. America and the rest have no right to dictate terms. US have itself failed to ratify CTBT through its Senate; how can it demand the same from Pakistan! The way the Indian atrocities continue in Kashmir and the manner its leadership posed Pakistan as archenemy during the election and the Pakistan army as a rogue army, has further strained the relations. As long as these atrocities continue and the freedom movement is crushed through use of blatant force, thinking of friendship with India amounts to betraying the ideology of Pakistan and the martyrs of Kashmir. These are constants of the national security and foreign policy.

4. Reforms in Electoral System and Machinery:

This is the core point, which will decide Pakistan’s diversion to embark upon a new course. If electoral system is not corrected, the nation will not have a clean leadership exactly as it failed to have in elections over the past 12 years. To clean filth through accountability, correct the voters’ lists, making identity card essential in voting, setting and enforcing expenditure limits for the candidates, establishment of a free Election Commission, scrutinizing candidates against the provisions of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, increasing seats in the National and Provincial Assemblies to broaden representation, introduction of proportional representation system for all or at least half the seats - are some of the steps that can bring about true reforms in the system. Only then can the nation hope for the emergence of a clean leadership that can lead it to the goal of progress and meaningful development.

The nation faces a grave situation and agenda. The seven points by General Pervez Musharraf are all important, yet he and his team should give priority to the above-said four points. They cannot deliver all what is required. If, through these four basic steps, they enable the country to move in the direction of pure democratic system, that will be a memorable and heroic deed. But, if they put hand in too many things and could not realize the imperative of the fundamental points, then will neither be able to deliver the nation from the current quagmire, nor themselves be get out of it, no matter how well-intended their actions be.

The General’s policy speech was well balanced and promising, but it was lacking in two fundamental areas. One, it did not say anything about the electoral machinery and system. Second, it made no mention of the resolve to rid the economy from indebtedness and follow the course of self-reliance. It is hoped that he and his team will give due consideration to these two aspects.

All praise and thank to Allah that the first step of the army through which Nawaz government was dismissed and an interim system established and the new priorities and targets set by General Pervez Musharraf in his first policy speech, were all positive steps in the right direction, conforming also to the national aspirations. With this step and promises, the new military leadership has taken upon its shoulders a great historic responsibility. At the same time it has put itself into a great test. This leadership will not be judged on the basis of what it says. The true test will be in the field of action. The first being what team is selected for the realization of the goals set, and how much confidence of the nation it enjoys. Also to be seen how the team moves in the direction being followed and whether the nation is also taken alongwith. Further to see what reasonable arrangement is made that the oppressive debauched and transgressive leadership is duly punished for its evil deeds and a new clean and pious leadership emerges to lead the nation. Now only the action will be seen and made the criteria of judging the performance.

The holy verse selected by General Pervez Musharraf for recitation before his policy speech and the prayers through which he invoked Allah’s mercy, are very important. In a way, they make a firm and renewed covenant with Allah and with the Pakistani nation. The verse says:

O ye who believe! stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you severe to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to Piety: and fear Allah, for Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do. (Qur’an 5: 8).

He then terminated his speech with a captivating prayers:

O’ Allah, I promise my nation sincerity, honesty, integrity and unflinching loyalty. Give me the vision to see and perceive the truth from the false, the wisdom to comprehend the problem and find its solution, the courage to do justice and the strength to do the right. May Allah be with us all: A’meen.

The following holy verses are here to invoke spirit. They are like a beacon of light, movers of the hearts, and a continuous spur for resolute actions for Muslims, for the nation and the new leadership:

O ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Apostle, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourself, refer it to Allah and His Apostle, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is best, and most suitable for final determination. (Qur’an 4: 59).

Allah doth command you to render back your Trusts to those to whom they are due; and when you judge between man and man, that ye judge with justice... ( Qur’an. 4: 58).

Those who hearten to their Lord, and establish regular prayers and give regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid wrong: With Allah rests the end (and decision) of (all) affairs. (Qur’an. 22: 41).

O ye who believe! Why say ye that which ye do not? Grievously obvious is it in the sight of Allah that ye say that which ye do not. ( Qur’an. 61: 2-3).

                          Index Isharat               Top

Translation and adaptation of the editorial of Tarjuman Ul Quran November 1999.