Ominous signals from the U.S.

When the Chief Justice of Pakistan was restored by the Supreme Court on Friday very few people knew that it would send ripples as far as Washington, DC. The restoration of Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, who had been removed by President Pervaiz Musharraf on March 9 on charges of misusing his authority, has nibbled at the power of the military strongman in Pakistan and his influence in the United States.

The U.S. has been banking on Musharraf in its global war on terror since 9/11 because apart from Afghanistan and Iraq tribal areas of Pakistan are one of the theatres.

Pakistan’s support to the United States has been crucial to crush the Taliban resistance inside Afghanistan and wipe out their hideouts in the bordering Waziristan. Musharraf sent in thousands of forces in the mountainous area bordering Afghanistan that was no-go area for the army.

But this operation from the very outset had not been that easy. Pakistan army was badly bruised by hardened militants, forcing the government to change its strategy and enter a deal with them.

The September 2006 deal between the government and the militants of Waziristan was taken by the United States with a pinch of salt. The Supreme Court verdict on Friday sent a chilling message to Washington that the man they are banking on is not that strong.

Now, every move that Musharraf would make to enconse himself in power can be challenged in the rejuvenated Supreme Court. This gives Musharraf and his supporters in the White House a cause for concern.

If Musharraf goes, one way or the other, the United States sees no one else who could carry on the work undertaken by him. This leaves the White House with no other option but to act themselves directly.

This is the reason that for the past one week disturbing signals are emanating from the United States. Every second White House aide talks of direct hits inside Pakistan to take out ‘Taliban targets’.

If the United States opts for this military option, it is wrought with more dangers than the ongoing war. Any single bomb that the U.S. would drop inside Pakistan would send hundreds of people, who so far float on the fringes, into the ranks of the militants.

Waziristan is no plain area like Iraq; it is a labyrinthine of thick wooded hills where bombs can be least effective. Enter the ground forces of the U.S. and they are in for a long haul with no success in near future.

Any direct action inside Pakistan would catapult the fundamentalists to power.

If there is any delibrations in the White House on post-Musharraf scenario it should focus on promoting a democratic despensation in Pakistan. For this fair and transparent elections are a must. Fundamentalism or militancy can be defeated only in polls. People of Pakistan have always elected moderate forces whenever free and fair elections have been held.

By propping a military dictator the U.S. has always helped strengthen militancy and fundamentalism. It is time the U.S. recompense the people of Pakistan in particular and other Muslim countries in general by supporting democracies. Pampering dictators in the name of war on terror would fan the flames of war every where.

Judicial victory

For the first time in Pakistan’s chequered history, the Supreme Court redeemed itself by standing up to a dictator and restoring its Chief Justice. The full court decision that sent the whole country in jubilations was the culmination of a four-month long but tough struggle that also saw the closing of ranks among the otherwise diverse ideologies.  The Friday judgment was also an expression of ‘no-confidence’ in the policies of Gen. Pervaiz Musharraf who had–and still has–the delusion of being the most popular leader in the country.

The Supreme Court decision would go a long way in realigning the different power centers in the country. No dictator, both civil or military, would in future dare to take the apex court’s seal of approval for granted. From now on every decision, whether at the top level or lower level, would be taken by keeping the judiciary in mind. The change that this decision has brought would percolate down to the lower courts where majority of the litigation takes place.

War on terror and Pakistan

It seems that the global ‘war-on-terror’ has reduced in scope to become a local war on terror in Pakistan. But, like in other hotspots, it entails a lot of ‘collateral damage’ in our country, especially in tribal areas bordering the restive Afghanistan. More than 100 people, most of them women and children, were killed in the Lal Masjid/madrassa operation. It spewed a series of suicide attacks against the army and policemen in different parts of the NWFP. A wave of rage is running across the country, but the uniformed President Pervez Musharraf constantly looks towards Europe, especially the U.S. for a pat on his back–and he got it readily from Washington. For this, every Pakistani holds the U.S. and his ’stooge’ Musharraf responsible for the ongoing war in Pakistan.

As far as madrassas (religious seminaries) are concerned, there role in Pakistan is paradoxical. On the one hand they provide shelter plus two time meals to the destitute. On the other, they give a very warped world view to their students. This skewed world view came very handy to American interests when the Soviet forces entered Afghanistan in 1979 to prop up a socialist revolution in the land-locked country. American arms and Saudi petro dollars rolled into Pakistan to launch a jihad against the Red Army. They, in cahoots with Pakistan’s prime intelligence agency, the ISI, recruited the madrassa students [known as taliban] to trap the communist bear in Afghanistan.

Once the Red Army rolled out of Afghanistan in 1989 under an agreement, the U.S. and the rest of the world left Afghanistan and a large army of mujahideen to fend for themselves. Being betrayed and left in the lurch, the socalled mujahideen were recruited by Pakistan to seek a ’strategic depth’ in a volatile Afghanistan to safeguard its western border and to turn the Durand Line into an international border between the two countries.

Pakistan’s, ISI’s for that matter, efforts culminated in the birth and victory of the Taliban in Afghanistan who took over Kabul in 1995 and established a mediaeval type government in the name of Shariat. However, when the 9/11 happened Pakistan’s plans vis-à-vis Afghanistan went awry. In the words of President Musharraf, Pakistan, to safeguard its nuclear program, had to take a U-turn on its Afghan policy. Overnight the Taliban fell from allies to bet noire status.

But the ISI did not cut its ties with the Taliban. It kept supporting the Taliban one way or the other, not to lose its influence in Afghanistan. This policy brought more pressure on Pakistan from time to time to crack down on the Taliban and their supporters in Pakistan, especially North and South Waziristan that were used by the Taliban remnants as safe haven for launching attacks inside Afghanistan.

However, Pakistan’s this policy of appeasing the U.S. by bombing its own areas did not carry any favour with the people of Pakistan. Musharraf lost his popularity among the people, but kept sticking to his guns to uproot extremism from Pakistan. With the passage of time ‘talibanisation’ spilled over into settled areas of the NWFO bordering the tribal belt.

Things came to a head when a mosque that also controlled two madrassas in the heart of the federal capital, challenged the writ of the government by kidnapping people on charges of spreading vulgarity and occupied a children library to press for Shariat rule in Pakistan. Initially, the government looked the other way while the stick-wielding taliban and burqa-clad female seminarists stalked the streets of Islamabad like self-styled vigilantes.

Emboldened by an appeasing government, which always held negotiations with them, the taliban this time dug in well to challenge the government, which was already mired in crises created by the unceremonious sacking of the Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and the havoc wreaked by widespread rains and floods in Sindh and Balochistan provinces coupled with the unending war on terror.

Finally, the government launched an operation to stamp out the extremists it itself had created and groomed, killing close to a 100 of them, including women and children. The charred remains of the mosque-madrassa were still in flames when a wave of suicide attacks on the army and police in the NWFP province perished many.

Musharraf wants to crush the militancy with an iron fist–a move which spurs more militancy and risks a civil war in the country. Militancy or extremism, no doubt, is a scourge, but it needs a multi-pronged strategy to tackle on. The use of force without any remedial steps at social and political level alienates the civil society as well.

Since the militants have been systemically weaned away from the mainstream to use them for strategic purposes as frontline of defense, the need is to somehow bring them back to normal course of things. For it the government has to strengthen the civil society which is moderate by all means. Moderate political parties have been rendered irrelevant by the Musharraf government when it banished their leadership. It created a political vacuum which was readily filled by the religious parties that have their support in madrassas.

In primitive societies, when wisdom used to be the guiding light, militants of the tribe would not be brought from the front straight to the population. They had to be camped at a distance from the settlement to go through some rituals to make them humane once again after tasting and spilling blood.

During the Afghan war Pakistan had established a virtual industry to produce mujahideen for the American cause without giving a thought to its repercussions. Still, there has been no scheme to somehow socialize these militant once again to make them peaceful citizens. In the process of indoctrination, Pakistan’s own established went through reverse indoctrination. Within no time the whole society was first deintellectualised and then militarized.

After 9/11 Musharraf took it upon himself to stop militancy, but all his moves were half-hearted. His enlightened moderation systemically cornered the enlightened and moderate sections of the society, while the militants were pampered one way or the other. Now, when constantly prodded by the U.S. and forced by circumstances Musharraf is using heavy handedness. This iron fist policy in fact promotes militancy instead of curbing it.

The only remedy right now is to hold free and fair elections on the due date. Musharraf should doff his army uniform and contest presidential elections as a civilian. Only through repeated elections these militant forces can be sidelined, because they may be well-trained in militancy, but they certainly are not street-smart enough to win elections. The war that Musharraf has started in the streets needs to be brought to the parliament where militants are sure to lose.