YOUR Excellency, There comes a time in a nation’s life when its sense of dignity and purpose must be reclaimed from the morass of despair into which it may have fallen. In the history of this nation, of which I am a proud citizen, that hour of reclamation came on Feb 18 this year.

That there have been efforts to rob us of this moment of rebirth is clear from the sinister machinations which have taken place behind closed doors and behind barricades forged of the most hardened metal. That there has been resistance to these manoeuvrings makes me prouder still, and gives me the courage to write to you, a representative of the ‘most powerful country on earth’, and to speak my truth clearly, and with humility.

It was not too long ago that I received in my mail a document entitled ‘The break-up of the colonial empire and its implications for US security’. I would like to present here the gist of what this amazingly prophetic document presaged.

In a nutshell, this paper stated that the growth of nationalism in some areas of the world has serious implications for US military and economic security. It goes on to pontificate on the unfortunate turn of events which could lead to great difficulty in the acquisition of raw materials, markets and military footholds in case this rising sense of nationalism actually results in the attainment of national sovereignty. It goes on to lament the possibility that in such a situation these “sovereign states” would be free to choose their future alignments politically, militarily and economically.

Your Excellency, this document was circulated by the Central Intelligence Agency as a paper marked ‘Confidential’ on Sept 3, 1948, almost exactly a year after the great subcontinent of India was divided into two separate nation states. That it still resonates with the power dynamics which exist today is a reflection not only of the persistence of imperialist destinies enacted by your country, the United States of America, it also reflects on the sad history of my country whose geography has seemed to spell its destiny. Yet, sixty years after the formulation of this intelligence report, and sixty years after the formation of this state, there seems to have been a paradigmatic shift in the way we view things, at least in this country if not yours.

You see, Your Excellency, the people of Pakistan seem to have finally seen the light which you and your predecessors have desperately tried to show us and other ‘faltering states’ which knew nothing but conquests by marauding hordes, dictatorships and inequity and injustice. This seemed to be the unfortunate lot of the ‘underdeveloped’, grappling with complex issues such as justice and fair-play, and even more esoteric concepts such as ‘liberty and free will’, two of the several principles enshrined in the document referred to as the Declaration of Independence signed by the illustrious sons of the newly decolonised United States of America in 1776.

In the eighteenth century it was the American Revolution which brought hope to the colonised. Colonial subjects resisting the metropolis revered that declaration, referring to it as the prototypical articulation of freedom from oppression and the coercive policies of colonialism. Certainly, the words of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson found an echo in the hearts of the many countries which had formed a part of some hegemony or the other over the past several centuries.

Just to remind you, I am quoting from the preamble to this wonderful text: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

This document elaborates in fair detail the causes which “impel” a nation to break those bonds which do not honour the separate and equal status of independent states. It insists that all peoples have the right to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness, and that “… to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness…. When a long train of abuses and usurpations … evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security….”

Your Excellency, the people of Pakistan are entitled to forming such a government, having chosen to reject the one which claimed to speak in the name of the nation but which centred its policies on preserving its own interests. On our borders the people have spoken, lamenting the destruction of homes and indiscriminate killing of the innocent. In our villages the people have spoken, enduring the hunger imposed upon them by men in well-cut suits. In the cities the people have spoken, suffering the darkness which has descended upon them by flawed policies designed by those who now claim to be ignorant of the writing on the wall.

It is my humble submission, Your Excellency, that you listen to these voices and not to those which have woven sinister designs of hegemonic control over my homeland and the region in which my home is situated. Sixty years ago we cut the cord that tied us to the British Empire; it is time the inheritors of the post-colonial world shaped their own destiny and stood up to masters disguised as friends.

feryalkimail@yahoo.com

THE problems confronting Pakistan are both immediate and serious as demonstrated by the frequency of terrorist violence. Yet Hamlet-like indecision typified the victors of the Feb 18 election who for several weeks procrastinated on government formation.

While politicians dithered over power sharing and choosing a prime minister, suicide bombers continued to strike with impunity, targeting security personnel in particular as was the case in Lahore on March 11.

Nothing it seems has been learnt from the previous year, undoubtedly the most blood-drenched since 2001, in which 60 suicide attacks resulted in 770 deaths and 1,574 injuries. In the first ten weeks of the current year, 16 suicide attacks have claimed 259 lives. Of these, six have occurred between the Feb 18 election and mid-March with a toll of 130 fatalities.

The message in these gruesome statistics is that the need for a consensus government is more compelling and urgent than ever before if terrorism is to be effectively combated. Such a dispensation has to work hand in glove with a depoliticised military establishment to eliminate extremist violence.

It is heartening that soon after taking over as COAS, Gen Ashfaq Kayani has adopted measures to revive professionalism in the army and acknowledged that the military can best meet the challenges of the future with the support of civil society. The ban on army officers from associating with politicians and their recall from civilian posts are welcome first steps.

The epicentre of terrorist violence is in the tribal areas and Gen Kayani’s visits to Waziristan, the first by a COAS since the start of the militancy, is undoubtedly a morale booster for the soldiers who are engaged in a ‘ghost war’ in which the enemy is amorphous and cannot be easily identified, targeted and destroyed.

After the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda ideologues and the Taliban sought to reverse the occupation of that country by the ‘infidels’. Islamic Pakistan and its Muslim army were initially considered kosher and were not attacked. This however changed in 2003 after the Egyptian cleric, Sheikh Essa, relocated to Mirali in North Waziristan. His sermons resulted in the emergence of takfiri militancy which considers all non-practising Muslims to be infidels. All perceived US allies and moderates are targets.

The venom spewed forth by Sheikh Essa has galvanised extremist forces such as Lashkar-i-Taiba, Jaish-i-Mohammad and Lashkar-i-Jhangvi to rally to his call and nothing short of establishing ‘Islamic emirates’ will satisfy them.

In the process, the writ of the state has been persistently eroded in the seven tribal agencies. Thus in late 2005, Pakistani Taliban in North Waziristan declared an Islamic state. In Bajaur, known in the 1980s and the 1990s as the ‘Poppy Kingdom’, Friday was declared the weekly holiday in July 2007.

Kurram Agency, the second largest in Fata and notorious for Shia-Sunni violence, was where Al Qaeda operatives first fled after 9/11. South and North Waziristan continue to be the centre of Taliban and Al Qaeda activity. In Khyber Agency, where the Lashkar-i-Islam is strong, men are forced to wear traditional caps or else their heads are shaved and they are fined.

The Orakzai and Mohmand agencies, although relatively more secure, are also becoming increasingly vulnerable to Al Qaeda and Taliban ingress. The former has witnessed Shia-Sunni violence and Taliban from this agency have moved into nearby Kohat where violence has been perpetrated on citizens who do not conform to their distorted interpretation of Islam.

In Mohmand Agency, despite the cooperation of the Safi tribesmen with the government, militants blew up the al-Sehat hospital in September 2007 as a warning to NGOs to stay out of the area.

The erosion of the state’s writ is not confined to the tribal areas as the events in Swat, other settled regions of the NWFP and the July 2007 Lal Masjid episode in Islamabad have demonstrated. The mainstream political parties and civil society have unanimously stressed that this trend must be urgently arrested and reversed. Yet post-election government formation has been unacceptably slow.

The prevailing political uncertainty and the absence of a clear-cut sense of direction have provided Al Qaeda and the Taliban the space to regroup and strike at random. The problem is complex and multi-layered. The solution lies in a mix of military, political and ideological initiatives.

Militarily, there must never again be a repetition of the Sararogha check-post incident of January 2008 or the abduction of more than 200 troops by Mehsud tribesmen and their Taliban allies as was the case in South Waziristan last year.

The measures taken by the new COAS to reinvigorate and restructure the army augur well.

Gen Kayani has affirmed the constitutional obligations of the armed forces and this means the military has to be depoliticised and work in tandem with the elected government. Only then can an effective civilian-military partnership so essential for the fight against terror be established.

Politically, the old administrative system of assistant commissioners, deputy commissioners and commissioners has to be revived. In Fata, the responsibility of dealing with the tribesmen, who should be associated with implementing state policy, must revert to the political agent.

The Political Parties Act of 1962 has to be implemented in the tribal areas. The lack of secular political parties has provided religious outfits an unopposed playing field through the management of mosques and madressahs. Development projects have to be accelerated and jobs created.

In Waziristan alone there are approximately 80,000 males in the 18-25 age group that are unemployed and therefore an easy target for recruitment into Taliban ranks.

Ideologically, the false dogma preached by the likes of Sheikh Essa needs to be exposed. Recently Sheikh Wahiduddin Khan, a prominent Indian scholar, stated that Dajjal, a concept that some theologians equate with the Islamic antichrist, is not a person but a manifestation of violence and terrorism. Shortly afterwards, no less than 20,000 Deobandi clerics collectively declared terrorism as un-Islamic.

The Taliban in Pakistan are also mostly Deobandis although links with the Darul Uloom of India were severed after Partition in 1947 and replaced by Wahabi influence and money. The question that arises here is whether genuine madressah reform can eventually erode the extremist ideology taught in the seminaries of Pakistan.

This three-pronged political, military and ideological approach to effectively combating terrorism can yield results only through a collective effort involving the elected government, a reformed military and, above all, civil society.

The writer is editor-in-chief of Criterion Quarterly.

AS we surge forward with our new-found experience of changing a government through the ballot box, perspicacious minds are starting to wonder about the longevity of our newly formed ruling coalition.

Democracy is not just the need of the hour; it is a need of the times. The silent voice of an election routed 22 federal ministers from parliament, and ushered in a set of new representatives.

The newly formed alliance, however, enters the fray supporting divergent ideologies. Even a cursory examination of the party manifestos reveals some glaring differences. At its core, the PML-N remains a party leaning to the right, favouring industrialisation and development by taking primarily a capitalist approach. At its heart, the PPP remains a party leaning to the left, a voice for the downtrodden and poor, aiming primarily to reduce social and economic inequalities.

Fortunately, there is plenty of common ground between them, enough to keep the politicians busy for a while and the differences at bay. The PML-N is driven by its unwavering stand against President Musharraf, ousting him from the office he currently holds and returning the military to the barracks — for good. It is insistent on the restoration of the judiciary, in terms of restoring both the esteemed judges and its stature as an independent institution.

The PPP does not have much of an appetite for military interference in politics, and shares the stand taken by the PML-N. However, it has shown some leniency towards leaving President Musharraf in office, provided he adopts a hands-off stance. Two months ago, such an attitude would have been hard to fathom.

We do not know how the understanding developed in Bhurban will play out in the long run. After the fixation with President Musharraf’s removal is eliminated, the government must get down to the daily business of good governance. I am not sure how cohesive the overall policies of a government composed of two very different parts can be.

The PML-N states that it aims for “investment and income-earning opportunities by creating manufacturing and service enterprises which are owned by the poor but run by … professional managers. The poor will be given bank loans to buy equity in these enterprises and pay back the loans through dividends earned by the enterprise.”

The thrust of its policies will be aimed at improving infrastructure to facilitate business. “Industrial estates, equipped with electricity, gas, telephone and sewerage will be developed, especially in backward areas and along the motorways, for the convenience of domestic and overseas investors.”

The PPP states, “Aggressive agriculture and rural development will be another central pillar of our growth and poverty-reduction strategy”. True to its stance, it feels that “The Pakistani peasant, mired in poverty and debt, has to be rescued from the morass of despair by a bold policy.”

In spirit, both parties mean well for Pakistan. They both stress that good governance must address the key issues faced by our nation such as health, education, welfare, respect, protection of the rights of women, minorities and the underprivileged, and restoration of democracy. It is implementing their vision for achieving these goals which will test the mettle of this coalition.

The labyrinth which led to elections in February was rife with violence. To the last Pakistani, we wish our democratically elected governments well. We need to be careful that we are not, as Dostoyevsky once put it, “running with the hare and hunting with the hounds” and pulling the wool over fools’ eyes.