No end to Musharraf’s dilemma
26 April, 2007
By Riaz Missen
The content of Musharraf’s speeches he has delivered across the country against the mullahs shows he is wary of them. They have been the main hurdle in the implementation of his plan to transform Pakistan’s image of a hot bed of militancy into that of a cradle of peace and tranquillity. To bring order out of anarchy is a difficult task when the stick-wielding mullahs remain willing to challenge the writ of the state. How Musharraf is going to build the alliance of moderates is a million-dollar question even when the country is abuzz with rumours that he has developed some understanding with Pakistan People’s Party Parliamentarians (PPPP).
Why should Musharraf choose the PPPP? Is it the best party to correct the wrongs of the past that have become too irritating in the global age? What are the ideological foundations of the party? What impressions has the PPPP left during its four decades of existence? How does Benazir tend to see politics and how does she plan to steer the ship of the nation in the 21st century? Then, there emerges the simplest question: Will the PPPP make any difference for the people of Pakistan?
The polity of Pakistan is beleaguered with the problem of good governance. The writ of the state that we can see being flouted in the areas adjacent to the Lal Masjid of Islamabad is disgusting in this global age. Though established through a democratic process, Pakistan is not yet an open society. Freedom of thought and expression is an illusion when the major part of the country is in the grip of landlords who happen to be spiritual leaders as well. Mullahs (take them for people who use religion to advance their political interests) are getting on the nerves of the nation while many tend to promote their cause without having flowing beards.
The landed aristocracy dominates the scene in southern Punjab and Sindh. Tribal leaders rule the roost in the rest of Pakistan. Family alliances of the powerful tend to write the fate of the 160 million people of Pakistan. The size of the formal economy is small. Only 10 percent people pay their taxes. Industrial infrastructure is virtually non-existent. Labour has no social security umbrella. The middle class makes up only a meagre portion of society. Ninety five percent people posses only five percent of the country’s resources but are condemned to bear 80 percent of the burden of the national kitty.
Extremism that is particular to Pakistan has its roots in society. It is natural, for there is no other way to sustain inequalities of such a scale. It is unfortunate that religion is being used to justify violence of which the poor are the victims. The other side of the coin is that the state has never regarded religious extremism as a threat to the security of the state. Instead, ethnicity has been discouraged to ensure internal peace. Violence did exist before the creation of Pakistan but it was structural. After partition, religious content has been added, making violence open and direct.
About one million people took refuge in Pakistan believing they were going to live in the fortress of Islam. To their utter disappointment, they found a society totally opposite to what they had imagined. There were landlords, Pirs, Chaudhries and Maliks controlling the fate of the people. Moreover, society was not religious as such. People interpreted Islam according to the preaching of the Sufis rather than that of the hardcore mullahs of Deoband. There was a clear division between the rich and the poor. Democracy had no meaning here because feudalism was in place since centuries. Unlike other parts of the Subcontinent, the British had lived here for some time practising democratic norms. They had given feudalism a hereditary touch, which was uncommon in the past.
The British had brought some agriculturalist families from the eastern banks of the River Sutlej to cultivate lands in Punjab and gave it a canal system. The second wave of farmers came after the partition in addition to the non-farming communities from India. These families were different in attitudes and behaviour from the local population. They practised norms and values not usual in a feudal society. These families further expanded in Punjab when Bahawalpur degenerated from a princely state into that of merely an administrative division of Punjab. But during all this process of colonization, the domain of the feudals remained untouched by any intrusion.
The tussle between the feudal and non-feudal elite was mediated by mullahs. Both sides of the divide fed and sheltered them. Jamaat-e-Islami was the first religious party to make inroads into the domain of feudalism. Deobandis, Barelvis and Shias were pushed forward to counter them. At one time, the state hired the services of these groups to advance its interests in the neighbouring countries. While this phase is over, there remains a great task to debrief them besides showing them their limits through zero tolerance towards lawlessness.
Musharraf says he will manage to strike a hard blow to the extremist forces through getting moderate elements on his side. Who will be his choice is a matter of speculation. As for the PPPP, one should remember where its leadership comes from. The feudals in its ranks have ditched the poor workers many times. They have got a long history of patronising the mullahs; they are the real beneficiaries of the lawlessness brought about by sectarian strife. Though the PPPP says it is against the army’s role in politics, its leadership has never said so about mullahs who have confused the minds of the people.
What did the PPP do for the people in the 1970s? Besides including the Objectives Resolution in the Constitution, it laid the basis for Islamisation in society. Declaring Ahmadis as infidels, banning of the sale of liquor at public places, declaring Friday a holiday, vowing to develop an Islamic bomb, and doubling the defence budget, it snatched from the party its progressive credentials. The compromise it struck with the mullahs was probably for the time being, but the damage it has caused is an open secret. Benazir Bhutto got an opportunity to reverse the situation two times after Ziaul Haq. She too made compromises. Her rule did not make any difference but the jialas of her party were unduly favoured. Corruption touched its highest point and the nation was introduced to the title of ‘Mr. 10 percent’.
Benazir Bhutto certainly had a role in dislodging the Nawaz regime. She was quoted to have said that the military had a role in politics. It is another matter that she failed to win favour with Musharraf when he took control of the polity. She offered the general her role in reviving democracy but he refused. Her position remains the same after seven years. The corruption cases against her are pending in the courts and her party has lost many of its colleagues to the ruling camp.
What benefits Benazir is expecting from the proposed deal with Musharraf are clear. She wants an honourable end to her exile and insists that the cases of corruption pending in the country’s courts against her be ended. She wants a rousing welcome in the country. Most recently, another demand has popped up that requires the government to abandon Arbab Rahim. Such news reports have rung alarm bells in the PML secretariat. Musharraf has to reject any prospects of a deal with Benzir. He is again searching for moderate forces in the country to pitch them against the extremists. God knows better whether he will find any except the ones he has in hand, but it seems certain that he will not turn to the PPPP again.
|
