October 10, 2004

‘God has given me an opportunity to reflect and work out a comprehensive strategy for the re-establishment of democracy and rule of law in our country without which we cannot lead a civilized life,’ says former prime minister Nawaz Sharif

THROWN out of power — and then out of the country along with 17 other members of his family — Mian Mohammad Nawaz Sharif rules out the possibility of any deal with the present setup which he calls “unconstitutional and illegitimate”.

In an interview with Dawn Magazine, conducted over the internet, Mr Sharif underlined the need for concerted efforts on the part of democratic forces to show the military its way back to the barracks. He was of the firm opinion that the 17th Amendment has to go. “Nothing short of it is likely to work or should work,” he thundered.

In a rare interview to a Pakistani newspaper since his ouster, Mr Sharif answered many questions but ignored several others for obvious reasons. The following are the excerpts:

Q. Five years ago, Pakistan experienced another military intervention because of an act of yours. Had you not sacked Gen Musharraf as Army Chief, the political process might have continued uninterrupted. Do you think you had made a serious mistake by doing what you did?

And, is it a mere coincidence that you did not have a good relationship with any army chief during your tenure?

A. Despite what has happened to me and even after having gone through the many sufferings in the dark dungeons of Attock Fort — hand-cuffing, armoured carriers etc. — I still hold our armed forces in high esteem. In particular, I have special regards for all those professional officers and men of integrity who abide by their oath in letter and in spirit.

However, the case is different with those who defy their oath, who abrogate the Constitution, who arrest their own prime minister, who maltreat their families, who make and break political parties, who encourage and indulge in political horse-trading, who declare their own national scientists as traitors, who bomb their own homeland and kill their fellow countrymen. They do not even deserve to be members of Pakistan Army, which otherwise has been known as a disciplined and professional force. They are the black sheep, and are responsible for tragedies like the fall of Dhaka. Neither the nation nor I have any respect and regard for such unpatriotic men in uniform.

No prime minister would ever dismiss his army chief for the heck of it. Very rarely a need would arise to remove or sack any officer that one appoints with one’s own hands unless the person has committed something atrocious. I, for one, am a strong believer of tolerance and compassion, but at the same time it is hard for me to give in on disloyalty, insincerity and wilful defiance of authority.

I don’t think the problem in Pakistan lies with the prime ministers. It is the attitude of all-powerful, hawkish and snobbish army chiefs who after becoming COAS start acting as ‘super prime ministers’ and consider it their right to call the shots even in political matters. They start giving baits to the people who matter, including the politicians, to conspire against the sitting government. Their frequent contacts with the opposition leaders by employing coercive tactics through the intelligence agencies eventually leads to the destabilization of the government. They are instrumental in activating the press against the government, thus creating uncertainty amongst the politicians and people at large.

Making policy statements against the declared position of the government has often been the cherished goal of the army chiefs. For example, the COAS during my first tenure as the prime minister issued a statement that undermined the government’s policy on the Gulf War in 1991. It resulted in a major embarrassment not only to me, but to the country.

General Jahangir Karamat publicly came up with a proposal for a National Security Council over and above the prime minister and the cabinet, which was highly undemocratic. This was overstepping the authority of the office of the COAS, and a clear violation of military discipline which amounted to direct interference in the political authority of the prime minister and parliament.

Although I had almost made up my mind to appoint him Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee after completion of his tenure as the COAS which was about two months away, I was compelled to take the unpleasant decision to ask him to put in his resignation.

When the president had the powers to appoint the army chief, the two offices used to join hands to conspire against the prime minister which finally led to the dismissal of parliament and the government.

Another sensitive issue is that the ISI has always been collecting information against the prime ministers. This came to my knowledge when I was the prime minister in 1997-99. There were derogatory remarks written against the prime minister which were inadvertently forwarded to me by the office of the COAS which I brought to the notice of the then ISI head and the COAS.

As the COAS, Pervez Musharraf ventured into a tactical conflict having strategic ramifications with India on Kargil without even taking into confidence the prime minister, the Naval and the Air chiefs. Not even his fellow corps commanders. In a meeting of the Defence Committee of the Cabinet (DCC) after the Kargil battle was well under way, it shocked me when the Naval and Air chiefs strongly complained about not having been taken into confidence before the Kargil misadventure.

The question is, why did Mr Musharraf undertake the Kargil operation when he knew fully well that the governments of India and Pakistan were at the time pursuing a policy of rapprochement to resolve their disputes, including Kashmir, through negotiations?

It was later revealed to me that the stone-pelting on the cars of diplomats, and the processions against the then Indian prime minister Vajpayee’s visit to Lahore in February 1999 were stage-managed and orchestrated by the agencies through a politico-religious party.

After the Kargil crisis, the ISI was also involved in telephone-tapping of the prime minister, which included my personal telephones at Lahore. Yet another case which merits a mention here is the early retirement of Lieutenant-General Tariq Parvez, the corps commander of Quetta, in 1999. He was retired on the pretext that he had met the prime minister without permission of the COAS. In fact, he had never met the prime minister, but even if he did, was it so serious a crime/offence to throw out a person of the rank of lt-general? The main reason for his ouster was his criticism of the Kargil operation.

In the light of the foregoing, may I ask you and your readers as to who is to blame? The prime ministers or the army chiefs? People’s rights and Pakistan’s honour in the comity of nations can only be achieved through supremacy of the Constitution and rule of law. I pledge to do my best to restore it. Our tragedy from the outset has been that usurpers have gone scot-free. Even those responsible for the fall of Dhaka went unpunished.

Political policies are worked out after due consideration of several factors. From them flow military, economic and other policies. To make it happen the other way round would be illogical. It is, therefore, wrong to say that the prime minister should work in sync with his subordinate heads of departments, military chief being just one of them. The logical and correct way is that they must work in sync with the prime minister and remain within the confines of the government policy.

Q. Now that the balance of power has been tilted in favour of the president and the army will also be playing a role through the NSC, how will it be possible for a political government to restore a genuine parliamentary system? What short- and long-term steps will you like to propose to the political parties to take to achieve the goal?

A. It is most unfortunate that such a great deal of the nation’s time and energy is being wasted on pursuits aimed at nothing more than the personal protection of a usurper. In my opinion, it is not the belief of the armed forces in general that the politicians are incapable of ruling the country. They also do not believe that they have equal rights to exercise political power in running the government.

The ruling coterie of generals has unfortunately acquired a lust for power and contempt for the Constitution, parliament and the politicians. This is a bad omen for the country. Illegitimacy, irrespective of how it is camouflaged, does not cease to be illegitimacy. How can one man play with the destiny of 140 million people?

There is only one recourse left now; the 17th Amendment has to go. Nothing short of it is likely to work or should work. If it works, it means a blatant disregard of national interests. If we fail, the people’s decision would still dominate albeit through means which may not justify the end, God forbid. This crisis will itself find its way to a logical conclusion which I clearly see as the triumph of the democratic forces in Pakistan.

The long and short of it is forging unity among the pro-democratic forces on a one-point agenda; the respect of the will of the people. It requires concerted efforts to show the military its way back to the barracks. All those responsible for the violation of our democratic institutions and the Constitution must be held accountable.

Q. If you can join hands with the PPP — a party on the mention of which your blood used to boil till it became your ally — and other parties whose movement against your government continued till its ouster, will it be possible for you to forget the bitterness of the past and think of opening a new chapter of reconciliation with President General Musharraf and those party leaders who have parted company with you? If not, why?

A. Ms Benazir Bhutto and I are unanimous on the need for the restoration of democracy in Pakistan. Insofar as return by arrangement with Musharraf is concerned, if that were to be an option, I would not have had to undergo what I had to. General Mahmood and his team of senior generals wanted to strike a deal with me on the fateful night of October 12, 1999, in return for my resignation as prime minister and for dissolving parliament.

Or, at least I could have taken advantage of the deal offered to me here in Jeddah through high-profile emissaries from Musharraf. There can be no parleys with traitors.

However, the need for a national reconciliation is very much there among the democratic forces in the country. All national issues should be debated and resolved in a democratic manner. A code of conduct must be defined for the future under which all democratic norms be respected by the political forces of the country. Finally, and most importantly, it should be resolved that no undemocratic influence would be allowed in the political arena.

I may add that there still are politicians who believe in self-respect and honour more than the politics of opportunism. Those who expect me to strike deals are sadly mistaken.

Q. Why did you appoint such a ‘capable’ ISI chief as the COAS who did not know the likely reaction against his own aggrandisement? Do you think it was a wrong decision, though within the powers of the prime minister?

A. General Ziauddin, the then DG ISI, was senior-most on the list. He had been the commanding general of an infantry division in Lahore, corps commander of Gujranwala, adjutant-general of Pakistan Army, an instructor at Staff College, Quetta, and the National Defence College in Islamabad, and had a very impressive track record.

Under the circumstances, he was the best choice for the COAS slot. He had all the credentials of becoming the COAS, otherwise he would not have risen to the rank of a three star general.

Q. Under the existing law, you and Ms Bhutto can’t become prime minister for a third time. In such a situation what future role do you see for yourself?

A. In my view, the 17th Amendment was specially engineered to fulfil the malafide aims and objectives of Mr Musharraf. It was designed by four or five people in the GHQ. The amendment has a specific purpose and is primarily meant to keep him in power. He staged a fake referendum, which was rejected by national and international observers on the grounds of irrefutable evidence of fraud. The elections were rigged. Our candidates were browbeaten by the agencies; they were forced to stay away from the contest.

Besides, despite having a controversial chief election commissioner in place, the electoral rolls were prepared under the auspices of the army and a cell in the NRB carried out delimitations of electoral constituencies to give a jump-start to the candidates of the King’s Party. Election laws and rules were changed overnight. Ghost polling stations, bogus votes, manipulative poling results all plagued the so-called elections. Despite all this, even a simple majority could not be achieved in the National Assembly to form a puppet government.

Defection clause was, therefore, suspended and loyalties of members of the People’s Party and others were purchased, thus enabling Mr Jamali to form the government with the margin of just one vote through massive horse-trading. How could any amendment in the Constitution be considered legitimate if passed under such circumstances?

All this is bound to crumble and the 1973 Constitution will get restored as it stood on October 12, 1999. When the foundation is incorrect, how can one expect the structure to be right? The present regime is illicit, illegitimate, unconstitutional and wrong. It has to crumble and with it will crumble the 17th Amendment.

Q. You have been out of the country for about four years, how do see your decision to agreeing to leave Pakistan along with other family members? What have been the gains and losses? How has it affected your party and its future?

A. The decision to leave Pakistan was not mine. I got a message when I was in the Attock Military Garrison lockup that arrangements have been made for me and my immediate family to go to Saudi Arabia. What transpired between the Saudi Crown Prince and Musharraf is between them. I am, however, grateful to the Saudi government for its brotherly gesture and kind remembrance.

Here, I am leading a proactive life. I keep myself abreast with all developments back at home and around the world. I am in touch with my people in more than one way and at no stage have I felt isolated or out of touch with the political developments in Pakistan.

Almighty God has given me an opportunity to reflect and work out a comprehensive strategy for the re-establishment of democracy and rule of law in our country without which we cannot lead a civilized life.

As is said, one can deceive some people for some time, but not all the people all the time. The people of Pakistan are well aware of the conspiracy to keep the popular leadership away from the country. Being a grassroots party, the ground reality is that our vote bank has remained intact. In fact, lines are clearly drawn and one can see all genuine political forces unanimous on the need to show the military its one-way route to the barracks.

The illegal ouster of Mr Shahbaz Sharif, in defiance of Supreme Court orders, is ample proof that the present regime is skating on thin ice. It cannot afford to even allow Mr Shahbaz Sharif’s wife to stay in Pakistan for more than a few weeks after their daughter’s weddings. Is it an indication of Mr Musharraf’s strength? I leave the answer to the nation.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)