BEDLAM IN PAKISTAN Musharrafobia or Hypocrisy of the Intelligentia By Prof.M.A.Sofi (aminsofi@rediffmail.

com) The present situation in Pakistan, though reminiscent of similar upheavals that have visited the country since its inception in 1947, is symptomatic of the crisis besetting it on account of its civil society being ambiguous, among other things, about the kind of ideology that ought to guide its destiny as a modern nation state in the contemporary world. The fact that the public opinion in Pakistan is sharply divided as to whether the country should have a secular identity or be ruled by a theocratic dispensation is a pointer in this direction. It is a pity that all those who have ruled the country since it came into existence six decades ago did so while swearing fealty to the integrity and well-being of Pakistan , but failed miserably to live up to the image of a leader whose vision and leadership would bail it out of the mess when chips were down. And General Musharraf is no exception to the image cultivated by this crop of leaders who have ruled the country ever since, although it ought to be conceded in all fairness that he did on occasions conduct himself in a way that demonstrated that he had the vision of how his country should emerge as a modern, moderate Muslim state that would inspire awe and admiration amongst the comity of nations. In spite of how he projected himself as a leader both at the national as well as at the international level during the past eight years, his nemesis has been his over-riding zeal for unfettered power that pitted him against the chief justice of Pakistan who, as we all know, had neither the charisma nor the stature expected of a top jurist but who was shot into prominence by sheer accident of circumstances as a rallying force for the opposition against the President and his government. Although it goes without saying that the President did overstep his jurisdiction by proceeding against the CJP for what was billed as the latters insubordination, what is indeed baffling is the groundswell of public sympathy for the CJP and an equally strong opposition for the President by the public that was witnessed following the spat between the two. These developments cannot be understood in isolation but ought to be judged in a wider context as part of the systemic rot that has manifested itself on innumerable such occasions in the past even when elected governments were dismissed with impunity on one pretext or the other, ostensibly to prevent a further regress of the country into chaos and anarchy. The standoff between the judiciary and the executive in Pakistan, which has now led to the imposition of Emergency in the country, is not of a recent vintage but can be traced back to the previous regimes whose track record on the issue has been far more reprehensible, what with the supreme court building having been stormed by the supporters of the previous government which had not accepted a particular decision that had not gone in its favour.

Be that as it may, it is nobodys case to hold a brief for the imposition of Emergency in the country, howsoever strong the justification for its imposition which include, among other things, the climate of insurgency especially in many parts of the Frontier province and a spate of suicide bombings in other parts of the country over the past couple of months. However, the fact remains that no one else in the country-not even Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto- would have done one better as they have neither the wherewithal nor the resolve to take on the fundamentalists in the country in order to quell this insurgency which, in the present geopolitical scenario, would have raised its head regardless of whoever happened to be at the helm of affairs in Pakistan. It is a pity that those crying hoarse against Musharrafs (mis)rule in the name of democracy are those whose democratic credentials have been suspect at best, in the public eye. If anything, in spite of his fatal flaws, Musharraf has shown far greater commitment towards democratic values-at least prior to March 2007- than has any of his predecessors or those who have taken to the streets, baying for his blood. It redounds to his credit that it is he who has presided over the transformation of an otherwise moribund media and a supple judiciary into vibrant institutions as they are, vital for a free and open society. It is unfortunate, however, that this hard earned freedom of press and independence of judiciary are now seriously compromised commodities following the imposition of Emergency in the country. On the other hand, in spite of whatever he may have achieved for the country in terms of growth of its economy, education and well being of its people, he allowed himself to succumb to megalomaniac tendencies that immediately led him on the war path with the judiciary which in turn antagonized the public against what they perceived was as an act of highhandedness and an undue interference in the affairs of the judiciary. The present mess, though exacerbated in no uncertain terms by certain actions of the present regime provoked by certain domestic compulsions, has an external dimension as well and derives mainly from its unconscionable capitulation to the American armtwisting in the latters so-called war against terror even when it has to be conceded that Musharraf could have ignored this clarion call for war against an invisible enemy but only at the cost of his countrys isolation as an international pariah with attendant consequences on its sovereignty and economy. Notwithstanding the shrill rhetoric underlying the Bush Doctrine: you are with us or with the terrorists, it doesnt help to explain his escapades into Waziristan and Swat as a proxy war waged by the Americans through their conduit in Musharraf. but more pertinently, as an absolute necessity driven by the challenges posed by the internal strife in the region, The conclusion that follows from these observations is inescapable: the ground situation in Pakistan is by no means going to be radically different from the one currently at display even if a new dispensation were to take over the reigns of that country at this point in time-whether on the strength of a popular verdict through elections or as part of an interim government through a power-sharing arrangement between various political parties. Any hope for a paradigm shift in the political climate of that country following a change of government is immediately dashed once one realizes that the greatest undoing

of Pakistan-apart from the myopic outlook of its leaders- has been the sheer dominance of the feudal class in its polity that shall continue to wreak havoc with the forces of modernism and enlightenment. Against this dismal backdrop, it is not reasonable to expect a third world country like Pakistan to put into place democratic institutions in its midst overnight, as it were, as the institutionalization of democratic order in such a scenario is condemned to be a painfully slow process which has to be staggered over a period of time, or else the unwholesome consequences of rapid democratization are there for everyone to see as has been amply demonstrated by the recent turn of events in Pakistan. The commodities like a free press or an independent judiciary, howsoever vital for a democratic polity can take its toll even upon those who have championed these causes in the first place but who did so obviously at their own peril, if the current situation in Pakistan is anything to go by. A see-saw for a propensity to overkill as the events unfolding in Pakistan have shown, is witnessed on both sides of the political spectrum there: whether it is public anger against the ruling establishment or the retaliatory measures by the latter against the former, the craving for overkill against one another is unmistakable! Witness the acts like the imposition of Emergency in response to the public opprobrium against the president for his spat with the judiciary; in either case the action/reaction has been disproportionate to the quantum of infringement the other party had committed. One has reasons to suspect that over the decades, the people in Pakistan have shown themselves incapable of democracy on the one hand and intolerant of the despotic dispensation on the other. Not even the Musharraf brand of benevolent dictatorship, peppered by enlightened moderation has gone down well with the public there as is demonstrated by the mass hysteria against his policies that has been witnessed there since March 2007. In this situation, what remains to be experimented as the potential basis for a new political order in that country is the prospect of a theocratic state, in conformity with what is being touted as the raison detre of the Islami Jamhouria Pakistan that, one would fancy, could possibly lend some semblance of stability to the country. But that appears to be a far cry inasmuch as efforts in this direction are doomed to be hemmed in by the difficulty posed by the multitude of faiths and schools of thought in Islam. Secondly, it helps to also bear in mind the historical circumstances in which Islam had begun to rule the roost in a society that was essentially tribal, devoid of the scientific temper and ethos that have come to characterize the societies aspiring for peace, prosperity and power in the contemporary world. Any hope of implementing Islamic rule in the current scheme of things has inevitably to be accompanied by a willingness to come to grips with the challenges of the modern world posed by the demands of education, science and technology which the society shall have to master and excel in, before hoping to advocate a revival of the Islamic rule of law in the society. I suspect the Pakistani society is not yet ready for this cataclysmic upheaval, though it is never too late to brainstorm on this vital issue and evolve a consensus at all levels of its civil society in terms of the kind of polity that Pakistan as a modern nation state should adopt and own it up as its ideology that would provide the direction of where it is supposed to head in its quest for progress, prosperity and peaceful coexistence with the rest of the world.

A final word about the hypocrisy in the ranks of the media in particular and of its civil society in Pakistan in general. The clamour raised by the media and the bar fraternity in Pakistan against certain unconstitutional actions by the government over the past few months is understandable and, without doubt, commendable. However, when one contrasts this proactive approach with the inexplicable silence when these prisoners of conscience chose to look the other way even when suicide bombings had begun to be the order of the day prior to the imposition of Emergency in that country, one cant help but explain it as a crusade of convenience, bordering on the hypocritical!. Is it perhaps because they didnt want to be seen as the devils advocate as even a whimper of protest against such dastardly acts would have earned them the wrath of those who have been unleashing terror in the name of Islam. As if that is not enough, what explains their criminal silence when the ruling establishment in Pakistan, ably aided by its intelligence outfits, had done its own bit to resort to questionable means in the Indian part of Kashmir to promote its own agenda with a view to wrest it from India without strategizing to take on the full military might of India and clinch the issue once and for ever! It is common knowledge, both in India and Pakistan, that Pakistan despite its failure to seize the initiative in Kashmir chose, in the interest of its strategic compulsions, to keep the Kashmir pot boiling with the sole aim of causing sleepless nights to the ruling establishment in India even when the strategy inevitably entailed retaliatory measures by the Indian security forces which resulted in the killing and maiming of the innocent Kashmiris by their dozens every single day. Where were these prisoners of conscience of this holier than thou clan, the Pakistani civil society, at a time when Kashmiris were suffering not only at the hands of the Indian occupation forces but more ominously as a result of that countrys war strategy which chose to fudge the real issue by engaging the enemy at the cost of life, limb and property of the hapless people of Kashmir. Let it be reminded to them that the present mess in that country is merely an of-shoot of the deafening silence of its civil society that it chose to maintain at a time when history was redefining itself post 1990 in this part of the world.

Prof.M.A.Sofi (Currently on Leave from KU)