| May 13, 2005 | Friday | Rabi-us-Sani 4, 1426 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Outdoing the violators
GENERAL Pervez Musharraf said on Tuesday that talks were in progress with the PPP of Ms Benazir Bhutto, that this was an on-going process, and that it was not merely the government that was interested in such a dialogue, but the PPP also wanted it. He went on to repeat something that he has said on other occasions also — that all ‘moderate’ forces should be encouraged and extremist forces curbed. On Wednesday, the general said exiled political leaders, including Ms Bhutto and Mr Nawaz Sharif, would not be allowed to return or to be part of the 2007 general elections. There may be no inherent contradiction between the two statements. It may be argued that what the feelers are about is an arrangement with the PPP and the PML-N that excludes any role for Ms Bhutto or Mr Sharif. But is that at all possible or practical? Neither Ms Bhutto nor Mr Sharif appear in any mood to relinquish the leadership of their parties and pass on the mantle to others. Some within the two parties may consider this to be appropriate, but the overwhelming opinion seems to be that there cannot be a PPP without Ms Bhutto or a PML without the Sharifs. If that for the time being is the reality, then why should Gen Musharraf repeatedly and deliberately seek to ostracize the two leaders and render all talk of a dialogue or political understanding meaningless? He should keep his options open, stop making clashing statements and let the prime ministers and ministers handle political questions to preserve at least a certain appearance of neutrality.
His point about the need for moderate parties to be encouraged is valid, but so far there has been no visible change of direction. Indeed, part of the problem lies with the general’s own party, the PML-Q, some of whose top leaders seem to be closer to the MMA tendency than to the concept of moderation. The freedom given to the MMA for its marches and rallies in contrast to the treatment meted out to PPP workers; the PML-Q’s negative intervention on the religion column in passports; the clumsy handling of the Punjab marathon — none of these indicate any particular readiness to adopt a more rational approach to political and social questions. This apparent divergence of views between President Musharraf and the PML-Q is not the only problem with the latter. It has failed to deliver in a general sense on many issues where public mobilization is necessary. On Balochistan, while there has been much going to and fro, negotiations have been confined to Mr Akbar Bugti, and there has been no effort to seek out the views of the non-sardari political forces. The proposal of revising the concurrent list and transferring scores of federal subjects to the provinces can hardly be taken seriously in view of the persisting deadlock over the NFC award. Within the PML-Q itself, there is dissidence, inevitably so in an artificially put together party with no commitment other than to power.
What it all boils down to is this, that if there is a genuine desire to move towards a free, democratic and accountable system based on constitutionalism and the rule of law, then the establishment should approach all accredited political parties with an open heart. It should make it clear that it accepts that the military’s role in politics and governance is not desirable and must end, and then go on to ask how we can together bring this about. Whether this should follow early general elections or whether a more representative interim set-up is required right away are questions that should be discussed in an atmosphere free of rancour and dismissive off-the-cuff statements. The prime minister in another context has talked of a trust deficit in relations between Pakistan and India. Well, there is one within the country too that needs addressing.
THE attack on Pakistan’s diplomatic mission in Jalalabad by a mob protesting against the desecration of the Holy Quran in Guantanamo Bay detention centre was wholly unwarranted. That Muslims throughout the world have been shocked by the desecration of their holy book goes without saying. In Pakistan, too, reaction has been strong. The government of Pakistan condemned the act of desecration, and the embassy in Washington conveyed its concern to the US State Department. The National Assembly, too, passed a unanimous resolution expressing its sense of dismay and horror over the incident and articulating this nation’s shock and and anger at the disrespect shown to their holy book. Today, some religious parties are observing a protest day against the sacrilege by a group of American soldiers whose government professes to protect and uphold the sanctity of all religions. The Afghans, too, must have been hurt by the desecration, and one can understand if they organized a rally to give vent to their feeling. But what is incomprehensible is why the protest should have taken the form it did in Jalalabad. The mob went on a rampage and torched the Pakistani consulate, the governor’s house and the offices of several foreign aid agencies that came their way. In the process, at least four people were killed and more than 70 injured. How did these innocent people deserve to be killed and injured?
Expressing one’s anger at what indeed was a blatant act of sacrilege is one thing; arson, indulging in senseless violence, wanton destruction and uncontrollable frenzy as a form of protest is quite another. The protest could have been staged in a peaceful manner and the sentiments of the Afghan people conveyed to Washington through the US diplomatic missions in Afghanistan. Instead, the organizers of the protest turned violent and in the process did no service to their cause. As for targeting the Pakistani mission, one does not know whether it fell victim to the frenzy or it was deliberately targeted by elements hostile to Pakistan. The second possibly cannot be ruled out because previously, too, Pakistani diplomatic missions in Kabul and Jalalabad have been targeted by groups not happy with Islamabad’s role in the US-led war on terror. In any case, one can have two opinions about Pakistan’s foreign policy, but torching its mission on an issue on which Islamabad, too, shares the protesters’ point of view is indeed most unfortunate.
While Pakistan expects the Kabul government to punish the guilty and pay compensation for the damage done to the consulate, the incident serves to highlight the kind of volatile situation that exists in Afghanistan. The Taliban regime might have fallen, but the “ideology” they represent still has adherents among sections of the Afghan people. For such people, violence against fellow human beings on any pretext is the only way of preaching their brand of religion. The Karzai government is an elected one, but it has a challenging task at hand. It has to promote the concept of representative government and consolidate the rule of law. Given Afghanistan’s history, this is not an easy task. Only painstaking efforts can bring results over the long term, provided the people also see tangible improvements in their lives. The country needs both political reforms and economic reconstruction to undo the effects of more than two decades of war.