GENERAL Musharraf has once again reiterated, that he would remain in uniform and that it is none of opposition’s business to make an issue out of his uniform. He will remain in uniform whether someone likes it or not. He alone is the best judge, who will decide at the right time to remove his uniform and that depends on his being satisfied that the national institutions are functioning properly.

This implies that there is no party, institution, or group that can force him to give up his uniform. Listening to such utterances makes one wonder if one is living in a democratic state that practises constitutional governance or in some banana republic. Some circles, sympathizing with the general, ask: after all what’s the big deal if president continues to wear uniform, which means that if he continues to hold the office of the Chief of Army Staff along with the office of the president?

The government quarters also accuse the opposition of unnecessarily making an issue out of the Legal Framework Order (LFO), which, according to General Musharraf, has become part of the Constitution because the Supreme Court had authorized him to make amendments in the Constitution. So, what is it that the opposition is agitating so much about and has gone even to the extent of boycotting the budget session of parliament? It is important to understand the significance and relevance of both the issues to Pakistani state and society.

As far as the issue of uniform is concerned, it is one of the most basic and central issues on which depends what kind of society we are likely to become. Today, even in what used to be called the Dark Continent (Africa) it has been recognized that military rule is not part of the solution for any society but certainly is part of the problem in some cases. In the twentyfirst century, it has generally been accepted in Asia, Africa and or South America that democracy and sustainable development have a close link.

Societies that are considered civilized are the ones that give sanctity to constitutions and civilian institutions. Today, military rule is universally considered a curse but not in Pakistan and Burma, the only two states where the generals are still ruling. If after fiftyfive years of our independence, our generals are telling us that we are not fit for civilian rule, then wouldn’t outside observers be justified in asking whether we are a viable state at all?

The issue of uniform is not about our politicians being capable or not capable of running the country. It is about a thinking in the military establishment that believes that military is far more competent than politicians to run the affairs of the country which lies in a geostrategic zone. By 1951, there was a fear that this newly established state could fall into the hands of communist sympathizers.

To meet this challenge, the Pentagon and Pakistan’s military establishment developed a close relationship to crush the influence of communists. This partnership has followed a steady course despite some political ups and downs in Pakistan-US relations. It was the cold war Seato, Cento relationship in the 1960s (General Ayub Khan), a frontline role for Pakistan in the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s (General Ziaul Haq), and again a frontline role in war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2000s (General Musharraf) that put military leadership in the driving seat, provided it a cover to perpetuate its rule, and further tilted the balance of power in its favour.

The question is while from long military rule the US got all its objectives by dealing with a reliable partner, who was easy to do business with compared to politicians, who would have bargained a lot harder for their support, what did Pakistanis get out of these military governments? Dismemberment of their country, destruction of democratic and judicial institutions, politics of horse-trading and permits, heroin and kalashnikov culture, ethnic and sectarian strife, and loss of self-esteem and confidence as a nation.

Whenever we have uniformed rulers, the first casualty has been the constitution. With the basic law gone, the judiciary becomes amenable to pressure and manipulation by military rulers. Because there can be no legal justification for its intervention, military leadership must prove that everything was going wrong and politicians were indulging in loot and plunder and therefore the military had to intervene to save the country. Then, a systematic campaign is launched to malign politicians and to present them as villains. This erodes people’s confidence in their leadership and also destroys the nation’s self-esteem.

It is ironical that while politicians are shown as the most corrupt, according to the National Accountability Bureau’s reply to a question in the National Assembly, the highest recoveries have been made from military officers, followed by bureaucrats and then politicians. As far as October, 1999 coup is concerned, the only reason for the coup was the dismissal of the army chief, which General Musharraf acknowledged in his interview with BBC by admitting that if Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had not dismissed him, he would still be the prime minister.

So, all the stories of corruption and failures are deliberate made-ups to justify military intervention. There was not the slightest possibility of a debt default by Pakistan on October 12, 1999, which the General Musharraf often cites as another reason for his takeover.

Interestingly, every military government portrays political leaders as power hungry but the irony is that each and every military ruler has always wanted to perpetuate his own rule by means fair or foul. To do so, all democratic norms are violated, existing political structures are dismantled, horse-trading is resorted to, a new constituency is created through local bodies, the opposition is suppressed and a culture of sycophancy is promoted in the country.

Military rulers use their uniform as a symbol to demonstrate their power and to keep their own institution firmly under control. It only shows that in this society the rule of ‘might is right’ holds supreme. Unfortunately, at a time when Bonapartists in other countries are standing aside for civilian rulers, recent example being of Indonesia, our military leadership is trying to assert and enhance its political role.

The logic that General Musharraf is using to justify his constitutional amendments and uniform is very interesting. On the one hand he says that he realizes it is not right to keep both the offices of the president and army chief by one person but on the other hand, he also says that Lahore High Court has given a verdict allowing him to continue to hold both offices.

This brings us to the issue of General Musharraf’s constitutional amendments, under the LFO. Opposition believes that the precedence of allowing an individual to make amendments in the constitution is very dangerous. Assuming that General Musharraf is a well-meaning person, what if the next army chief who decides to intervene is not quite as well-meaning? Who will stop him from playing havoc with the constitution? In a federation, the constitution is a compact between federating units (provinces) on the terms and conditions of forming a federation.

If the constitution becomes controversial, federating units can pull out of the federation. This is what happened in the case of East Pakistan. The 1973 Constitution was enacted with a consensus against the background of the 1971 tragedy. What are we gaining as a nation by changing it all too often making it controversial? The constitution lays down two-thirds majority support in both houses of parliament for amending the basic law. General Musharraf claims he was given the authority to amend the constitution by the Supreme Court which overrides the procedural requirement.

The question is whether Supreme Court itself has the power to amend the constitution. Under the constitution, its function is to interpret the Constitution — not to change it. How can it then give someone the authority that it doesn’t itself enjoy. Even if we accept Supreme Court decision that in the absence of parliament, a military ruler could make some changes in the Constitution to meet some contingencies. In that case as soon as parliament comes into being, all such acts have perforce to be put before it for validation.

This is a universal practice and all predecessors of General Musharraf followed this practice, but he wishes to make an exception for himself. The government also attacks the opposition on the ground that after taking part in the elections under the LFO it has no justification to protest over it now. The point is that when elections were held, there was no parliament in the country. Therefore, the opposition did not have the proper forum available where issue of constitutional amendments could be raised. As soon as parliament came into existence, opposition raised the issue of the LFO.

The government started negotiations with the opposition on the issue through a committee headed by the speaker of National Assembly, but later backed out of it by not convening the meeting of the party heads on May 26 as was to be done. Subsequently, it closed all doors of negotiations by making the speaker give a one-sided ruling to the effect that the LFO was already a part of the Constitution.

Pakistan stands at a crossroads. The key to its future lies in the hands of the military leadership, which is in command and control. If we continue on the present path, there will be more tension and crisis in the months to come. We have tasted the same medicine three times in the past, and should be wiser about the consequences of a fourth time.

The writer is an MNA and a former deputy chairman, Planning Commission.

Allah has blessed human beings with brain and wisdom. They have been commanded to strive with all their mental and physical capabilities, to scatter on earth in search of Allah’s blessings.

Whereas man is free to consume all good things bestowed upon him by the Almighty, he has been offered a highly attractive opportunity for investment of his valuables at a guaranteed manifold return in the eternal life hereafter. The name of this divine scheme for ensuring grace and honour in this life as well as in the life hereafter, is “charity”. It is therefore important for all of us to know the salient features of charity.

Surah Al-Baqarah ayat in the Quran contains a good deal of information and instruction on this aspect. Ayat 172 says, “O you who believe, eat (and drink) of the good things that We have provided for you, and be grateful to Allah, if it is Him you worship”. We must always thank Allah for whatever He has given to us, and never attribute any credit to ourselves.

Gratitude of Allah’s gifts is also worship. Its ayat 245 says, “Who is he that will loan to Allah, a beautiful loan, which Allah will double unto his credit and multiply it many times? And it is in Allah’s power to decrease or enlarge your (wealth, knowledge, prestige and other blessings). And to Him shall you return”.

Spending in the cause of Allah is excelled in many ways: (1) it shows a beautiful spirit of self-denial (2) in other loans there may be a doubt as to the safety of your capital or any return thereon. Here you give to the Almighty in whose hands are the keys of increasing or decreasing your wealth, knowledge, honour and whatever you can think of.

Charity is something where by giving we are sure to earn manifold blessings and by withholding we may even lose what we have. If only we have faith that our Lord is Allah and to Him we have to return, then there is no way we can turn away from a noble cause.

According to Ayaat 262, 263, “Those who spend their substance in the cause of Allah, and do not follow up their gifts with reminders of their generosity or with injury, for them their reward is with their Lord. On them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve” And “Kind words and covering of faults are better than charity followed by injury” (263). This important point has been reiterated in ayat 271, “O you who believe! Cancel not your charity by reminders of your generosity or by injury”.

Now that we know the significance and blessings of charity, it is important to know, what should be spent in charity, on whom and how? Answers to these questions are given in the following: Ayat 215 which says, “They ask you what they should spend (in charity). Say: whatever you spend that is good, is for your parents and your relatives and orphans, and those in need and for traveller (in unforeseen distress). Whatever you do that is good, Allah knows it well”.

We learn from the above that we should give in charity anything that is good, useful, helpful and valuable. It may be property or money; it may be a helping hand; it may be an advice; it may be a kind word; whatever you do for others which is good is also charity. On the other hand if you throw away something that is useless, there is no charity in it.

The next question is: to whom should you give? It may be tempting to earn world’s praise by a gift that will be talked about, but you can do that only if you are meeting the needs of those who have the first claim on you. If you are not, you are like a person who defrauds creditors. It is not charity. Every act of charity is judged by its unselfish character: the degree of need or claim is a factor, which you should consider. If you disregard it, there is something selfish behind it.

The third and the most important question is: how should charity be given? As in the sight of Allah this shuts out all pretence, show and insincerity. Surah Al-Bqarah, ayat 273 says, “(charity is) for those in need, who in Allah’s cause are restricted (from travel), and cannot move about in the land, seeking (for trade or work): The ignorant man thinks because of their humility and modesty that they are well off and free from want. You should nevertheless recognise their plight from their faces. They do not pester men and women by begging importunately from all and sundry. And whatever of good you give, be assured Allah knows it well.

Indiscriminate acts of so-called charity are condemned as they may do more harm than good. The real beneficiaries of charity are those who must be in want and there want must be due to some honourable cause. For example, they may be doing some unpaid service or acquiring knowledge or in some ways be prevented from seeking employment or doing strenuous work.

It also includes those who in spite of all efforts within their capabilities are unable to earn enough to fulfil their essential needs. Such people do not beg from door to door. it is the duty of those who are well-to-do, and also that of the Islamic Government (Baitul Maal) to find out such needy persons.

Maulana Abul Ala Moudoodi in his Tafheemul Quran has clarified that charity (except Zakat) is the right of all needy people, irrespective of cast, creed and religion. The definition of ‘Miskeen’ clearly excludes the able bodied professional beggars who adopt beggary voluntarily as a profession and persist with it even after hoarding enough wealth to fulfil their needs.

Surah Aale Imran, ayaat 134 and 135 give another definition of the righteous as, “those who spend (freely) whether in prosperity or in adversity, who restrain anger and pardon (all) men,... for Allah loves those who do good”. These ayaat make it clear that charity is not only a deed to be performed by the well-to-do people, but it is for all men to share their good things with their fellow beings.

Instead of grasping wealth, the righteous persons give freely and that they do not only offer their services and wealth in charity when they are well off, but also when they are in difficulty. They always think about those who may be in greater difficulty. They do not get ruffled in adversity or get angry when other people behave badly, or when their own good plans fail. Charity and good deeds are all the more important in adversity. We must remember the dictum, “Takers eat well but givers sleep well”.

Allah has forbidden extremism and has commanded us to tread the path of moderation. Surah Nisa, ayaat 37 and 38 say, “Indeed Allah has no love for the conceited, the arrogant, nor those who are miserly and niggardly, encourage others to be miserly and hide the bounties which Allah has bestowed upon them .... nor those who spend of their substance, to be seen of men, but have no faith in Allah and the last day”.

Arrogance is one reason why our deeds of love and kindness do not thrive and the other reason is miserliness or selfishness. Miser is the worldly wise man who not only refuses to spend himself in service but by example and percept prevents others from doing so.

A fault opposed to niggardliness and equally opposed to true charity, is to spend lavishly, to be seen by men. It is merely hypocrisy; there is no love in it either for Allah or for man. Physical, intellectual, spiritual powers and everything pertaining to our life is from Allah. We must therefore spend ourselves fully for Allah.

Allah commands us to spend money that he has provided to us, on our food and decent clothing, but ovoid wasteful spending.This is a clear direction to adopt moderation. Ayaat 31 to 33 of Surah Araaf say, “O children of Adam! Wear your beautiful apparel at every time and place of prayer: eat and drink but waste not by excess, for Allah loves not the wasters. Say who has forbidden the beautiful (gifts) of Allah that He has produced for His servants and the things clean and pure for sustenance? The things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are: shameful deeds, whether open or secret; sins and trespasses against truth or reason; assigning of partners to Allah for which He has given no authority and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge”.

Surah Al-Anfal, ayat 60 reads, “Whatever you will spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you and you will not be treated unjustly”. Surah Al Tauba, ayaat 34 and 35 say, “and there are those who bury gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah; announce unto them a most gracious penalty. On the day when heat will be produced out of that (wealth) in the fire of hell and with it will be branded their foreheads, their flanks and their backs. This is the (treasure) that you buried for yourselves: taste ye then the (treasure) you buried”.

In ayat 35 of Surah Al-Haj Allah has summarised the qualities of Allah’s devotees, “to those whose hearts are filled with fear when Allah is mentioned, who show patient perseverance over their afflictions, keep up regular prayer, and spend (in charity) out of what We have bestowed upon them.

Here, Allah has mentioned the following five qualities of His true devotee: (1) Humility (2) Fear of Allah that is akin to love and respect (3) consistency in treading the path of righteousness (4) their prayer is real communion with Allah (5) gratitude to Allah, shown by practical acts of charity to all fellow creatures.

The writer is a retired commander of the Pakistan navy.

FOLLOWING an almost a year long eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation between the armies of India and Pakistan in 2001 deployed on the border, there now seems to be a desire in both countries to return to the path of peace.

A delegation of Pakistani parliamentarians recently visited India on a goodwill trip and was received with much warmth and enthusiasm everywhere. They had a wide-ranging exchange of views with a cross-section of the intelligentsia there and came back with the impression of a positive change in the situation between the two countries. A Track-2 meeting was also held at Kathmandu in continuation of unofficial efforts to promote goodwill and understanding between India and Pakistan.

For about a week, a delegation of Indian parliamentarians has been travelling in Pakistan, meeting prominent social workers, peace activists, writers, university teachers, businessmen and members of the Pakistani legislatures. They were warmly welcomed wherever they went at receptions or formal meetings arranged to discuss matters of common interests between the two countries.

At a meeting held to felicitate them in Karachi, the members of the visiting delegation were warmly appreciated for their efforts to promote the prospects of peace and normalization between the two countries.

A resolution adopted at the end of the meeting called for a resumption of peace talks between the two governments, for restoration of road, rail and air communications between the two sides, unhampered and for hassle-free travel facilities for visitors from either country, and for easing of visa facilities and trade and cultural exchanges.

The Karachi meeting was addressed mainly by the Indian visitors, belonging to a broad spectrum of opinion. They were drawn from the different regions of India. Three of the parliamentarians were Muslim — Shahid Siddiqi of the Samajwadi Party which is widely seen in India as a possible alternative to the ruling BJP coalition, Khawaja Mohammad Khan from Hyderabad in the Deccan which continues to be something of an island of traditional Muslim culture in an otherwise predominantly Hindu south, and Abdul Rashid Shaheen from Baramoula, Kashmir.

They strongly condemned the rise of Hindu fundamentalism in parts of India. They also expressed the view that a firm handling of religious fanaticism and militancy practised in the name of Islam in Pakistan would strengthen their own efforts for keeping India secular and tolerant of religious minorities. They all emphasized the need for both India and Pakistan to abjure the use of force to settle their differences and spend more money on the social sector than on defence. Both countries, they argued, should bend their energies and resources towards fighting their common problems of poverty and illiteracy.

Of course, all this is very well. However, to what extent the visitors represented the true feelings of their own people is not quite clear. That they all spoke in a spirit of friendliness and warmth was unmistakable. But they did so by carefully avoiding any reference to the contentious issues plaguing India-Pakistan relations. There is thus a touch of unrealism about all this expression of bonhomie and goodwill.

It would be unrealistic to assume that there are no real conflicts or differences between the two countries. Any reference to India’s armed intervention in the East Pakistan crisis of 1971 rekindles bitter memories of many Pakistanis who tend to be sceptical about the prospects of peace and reconciliation with that country. (There are also large sections of Pakistanis who believe that the 1971 episode was not such a simple matter and that the policies of the ruling elites which alienated the people of East Pakistan from the rest were perhaps a more relevant factor.) Similarly, large sections of Indians continue to look back on Kargil as a stab in India’s back.

In the situation prevailing today, India’s constant allegations of Pakistan’s complicity in cross-border infiltration into Kashmir is also a major point of contention. However, as the Indian guests repeatedly stressed in their speeches and private conversations, it is only through a frank and sustained dialogue between the leaders of the two countries that irritants such as these can be removed. This indeed is the only way that the bitterness of the past between the two countries can be erased from the minds of people in both sides.

Above all, there is the issue of Kashmir. It cannot be swept under the carpet. Regardless of its genesis, both countries have to make a serious effort to resolve it. It must also be recognized that the dispute will take time to resolve. Although from their public statements, it appears that the leaders of both India and Pakistan are prepared to adopt a flexible approach, they would perhaps not want to be seen as yielding to pressure from the other side or making too many compromises.

There was also a vague feeling in some quarters that a way out of the Kashmir imbroglio might be known after President Gen Pervez Musharraf’s meeting with President Bush. However, what may or may not have happened at Camp David on this score would not be known for a long while yet.

During Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee’s visit to Lahore in February 1999 it was agreed between the two governments that efforts to resolve the Kashmir dispute would be intensified and that both sides would take immediate steps for reducing the risk of accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons. Both sides had also reaffirmed their condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and agreed to take steps to protect and promote all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Perhaps as and when New Delhi and Islamabad gets down to dealing with the nitty-gritty of their relationship, the first thing they should do is to reaffirm their commitment to that agreement.

It is regrettable that India has kept up its refrain of Pakistan’s alleged involvement in the cross-border movement of terrorists into occupied Kashmir. This makes any search for a resolution of the dispute more difficult. Incidentally, the Indian authorities have now set up a special cell — the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) — to monitor troop movements on India’s borders. As such, India should no longer need to make a public issue of any instances of the socalled cross-border infiltration and instead quietly take it up with the relevant Pakistani authorities.

During their stay in Pakistan the Indian parliamentarians must have had a fair measure of our people’s desire for peace between the two countries. This should prove helpful in promoting the chances of bilateral talks between India and Pakistan.