Jamaat-e-Islami and its campaign against PPP regime

Before we begin this analysis, we would like to make a few submissions about the major objections vociferously made by the regime’s apologists against the Jama`at-e-Islami’s peaceful and democratic agitation, with "dharna" as its centre-peice.

 The Dharna

It is a constitutional and democratic right of all political parties to mobilise public opinion through agitation and demonstrations and to organize unarmed and peaceful protests. Every protest, every procession, every assembly means some obstruction in the normal flow of traffic or business but it is part of the democratic process that facilities are provided and avenues created for peaceful political activity aimed at protest and demonstration. This right is enshrined in our constitution. Articles-4, 15 and 16 unambiguously affirm this right of the people of Pakistan. Federal or provincial governments have no right to impose unreasonable and arbitrary restrictions on peaceful demonstrations simply on the basis of imaginary and un-called for apprehensions. The courts have also upheld this right and the observations of the Lahore High Court on 26th October, 1996 on the JI Dharna before National Assembly are one such instance. Despite such a clear constitutional ruling, the federal and provincial governments of the PPP used every possible form of state force to check the movement and create barriers cutting off Islamabad from the rest of the country. Over six thousand people were opprehended without any provocation or cause. And finally it unashamedly tried to crush a peaceful demonstration by use of all weapons of violence in the hands of the police, the rangers and constabularies. It is a fact that despite this show of force the government failed and a large number of people reached before the National Assembly. Now the government is coming up with the claim that dharna by definition is unconstitutional, illegal and constitutes a form of violence. This claim has been made eloquently by the Minister of State for Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Mian Raza Rabbani, on the floor of the Senate on 27th Oct., 1996. Regrettably, the minister for state forgets that rhetoric cannot be a substitute for arguments. It is also an irony that this claim is being made by the spokesman of a party that tried to organize a long march against Mian Nawaz Sharif’s government in 1992, resorting to train march, strike, rallies, and confrontation with the police.

It may also be recalled that even earlier this party had resorted to similar protests under the leadership of its founder Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. The following extract from Stanley Walport’s book Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan: His Life and Times, (New York, Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 128-129) is relevant:

"Deny them their rights", Zulfi warned, " and they will find a redeemer and if none is available they will redeem themselves. No plan for change is needed when the people seek it. The mood of the people is the plan. But arrogant functionaries, oblivious of this, want only to find solutions for the regime’s perpetuation. ...

The classical excuse of colonial masters, whenever subject people have risen against them, has been that all the troubles are due to a handful of political agitators. ...

This Government would like to make the world believe much the same sort of thing. ...

Stripped of the maze of prejudice and fabrication, the truth, radiant in its clarity, stands as my witness when I say that neither I preached violence nor hatched a plan to instigate the students. ...

This regime, which has slandered the word "revolution" in describing its coup d’etat, celebrates a Revolution Day each year, but has the temerity to punish people for uttering that word...[D]emocracy ...exists...like the fragrance of a spring flower. It is a melody of liberty, richer in sensation than a tangible touch. But more than a feeling, democracy is fundamental right, it is adult franchise, the secrecy of ballot, free press, free association, independence of the judiciary, supremacy of the legislature, controls on the executive. ...

Under the canons of this regime, the printed word is in disgrace, the franchise limited to individuals subject either to intimidation or allurement, the body of the law contaminated by arbitrary acts... and the right of assembly in ashes in the furnace of Section 144. ...

This is the depressing reality but this does not necessarily mean that a change is not possible without violence".

It is my considered view that the use of force against the long march by the then government in 1992 or by the Ayub regime even earlier was as illegal and uncalled for as is the use of force by the present PPP government against the peaceful movement of the Jama`at-e-Islami. Yet the duplicity of the present leadership stands exposed and its double standards have become, a manifest reality.

Along with the allegation of dharna being inherently violent, it has also been claimed that it has nothing to do with Muslim politics and is a purely Hindu tactic. Both these claims are totally unfounded.

Dharna is an accepted political concept and is also a part of the Urdu lexicon. It is equivalent to ‘sit-in’ in English and bast in Persian. These terms are neither Hindu nor Muslim nor Christian. Strike resorted to by the Christians in Brazil or Philippine, and by the Muslims in Pakistan or Turkey and by the Hindus in India or Nepal remains a strike and has no particular religious or cultural dimension. In the Urdu language, almost 20 percent of its nouns and almost 80 per cent of its verbs have come from Hindi and Prakrit and other local vernaculars. Around 70 percent of its nouns come from Persian, Arabic and Turkish. Urdu is the national language of Pakistan and dharna is an integral part of our literary and political culture. The Qaumi Angrezi-Urdu Lughat published by the National Language Authority, 1992, edited by Dr. Jamil Jalibi, on page 1853 describes dharna as a term and concept in the following words:

SIT IN:

Translation: "The action of a people to sit in an organized manner at a place which is not normally meant for purposes of sitting". (As an example from the American political tradition the Lexicon quotes*). "A sit-in held in a hotel a dinning room by Negroes to protest racial discrimination".

The English-Urdu Lughat published by Ferozsons, edited by Al-Haj Feroz ud-Din on page 663 gives half a dozen shades of meaning in which the term "Dharna" is used. Explaining dharna dena and dharna daikar Baithna, the dictionary calls it an Urdu idiom meaning "the sit tight" and to "sit in with firm conviction".

The Concise Oxford Dictionary (p. 1069) defines sit-in as "occupy a place as protest especially against (alleged) activities there." The Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition, comes very near to the concept when it defines "sit-down strike", on page 1243. This has been explained as "a strike in which the workers sit in the plant but do not work". In fact, is that in the post-Second World War political history ‘sit-in’ has been accepted as a form of peaceful political protest throughout the world. It is a kind of peaceful resistance without any use of violence. In fact, the very term ‘sit-in’ has a peaceful flavour and not a confrontational tone at all. To call it a form of violence is doing violence to reality. In Europe and America sit-in by students in the colleges and universities, by labourers in factories and work places, by clerks in offices, by professionals in their hospitals, business centers, and by public in general to highlight certain grievances or national issues particularly regarding human rights, political demands, and questions of racial discrimination is an acceptable norm of the political scene. To give only one reference, I would like to quote from William Safire’s Political Dictionary: An Enlarged, Upto-date Edition of the New Language of Politics (Published by Random House, N.Y. 1978). On page 652, Safery describes ‘sit-in’ as follows:

"SIT-IN: a technique of demonstration launched by civil rights activists in 1960 to dramatize segregation in the South."

"The sit-ins at first dismissed as a college fad, were destined to bring into prominence the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and to change the pattern of segregation throughout the South."

The dictionary further quotes:

"John Kennedy, campaigning for President in September 1960, caught the significance of the sit-ins and turned a phrase about them. He [the President] must exert the great moral and educational force of his office to bring about equal access to public facilities, from churches to lunch-counters, and support the rights of every American to stand up for his rights, even if he must sit down for them".

Now a word about its Islamic background. As I have said the term is used in Persian where its equivalent is bast. This form of protest was effectively used by the Iranian `ulema against the dictatorial regime of Muzaffaruddin Qachar. The first major bast (sit-in) was staged in 1905 in the Abdul Azeem Mosque outside Tehran. A second bast was again staged in July 1906 for two days in the capital city and the third such sit-in was organized in the city of Qum, the religious capital of Iran, which continued for eight days and paved the way for the constitutional reforms of 1906 which inaugurated a new era in Iran’s history. See Ervand Abrahamian’s IRAN: A Revolution in Turmoil, Chapter 5: "The Crowd in Iranian Politics, 1905-53",edited by Haleh Afshar, (Macmillan, London 1985, pp. 122-123).

It is also an accepted principle that if a regime violates the constitution and disregards the accepted norms of law, then the peoples have a right to resist. If unprovoked violence is unleashed upon them, they have a right to defend themselves. That is why civil disobedience and direct action, which are not normally used as instruments of political agitation, have been accepted as valid means in certain situations. Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the greatest constitutionalist of South Asia and he piloted the entire Pakistan movement through peaceful and democratic means; however, a time came when even he and the entire Muslim League high command had to resort to direct action in 1946. As a result, thousands of people were arrested and Pakistan flag was forcibly hoisted on the Punjab Assembly building in Lahore. No one can describe that as resort to violence. It was a peaceful and democratic protest.

I would also place on record the fact that in certain contexts even what is otherwise described as violence becomes acceptable and justifiable. The case of Bhagat Singh, a revolutionary, was defended by none other than the Quaid-i-Azam in his speech in the Central Assembly on September 12, 1929. This has been highlighted in a recent book by the Indian Constitutional lawyer, A.G. Noorani entitled The Trial of Bhagat Singh: Politics of Justice (Konark Publishers Ltd., Delhi, 1996, pp. 76-96. Chapter 6, "When Jinnah defended Bhagat Sing"). A few excerpts from that historic speech are worth reflection:

"You want this House to give you a Statute laying down a principle generally in the criminal jurisprudence for this particular case, so that you may use it for breaking the hunger-strike in the Lahore case. Well, you know perfectly well that these men are determined to die. It is not a joke. I ask the Hon’ble the Law Member to realise that it is not everybody who can go on starving himself to death. Try it for a little while and you will see. ... The man who goes on hunger-strike has a soul. He is moved by that soul and he believes in the justice of his cause; he is not an ordinary criminal who is guilty of cold-blooded, sordid, wicked crime. ...

It is the system, this damnable system of Government, which is resented by the people. You may be a cold-blooded logician: I am a patient cool-headed man and can calmly go on making speeches here, persuading and influencing the Treasury Bench. But, remember, there are thousands of young men outside. This is not the only country where these actions are resorted to. It has happened in other countries, not youths, but grey-bearded men have committed serious offences, moved by patriotic impulses. What happened to Mr. Cosgrave, the Prime Minister of Ireland? He was under sentence of death a fortnight before he got an invitation from His Majesty’s Government to go and settle terms? Was he a youth? Was he a young man? What about Collins?...

And the last words I wish to address the Government are, try and concentrate your mind on the root cause and the more you concentrate on the root cause the less difficulties and inconveniences there will be for you to face, and thank Heaven that the money of the taxpayer will not be wasted in prosecuting men, nay citizens, who are fighting and struggling for the freedom of their country.

A.G. Noorani comments:

"There is no mistaking Jinnah’s high esteem for Bhagat Singh and his comrades" (p.90)

If such kinds of protests cannot be described as violence how can the peaceful methods of sit-in (dharna) dubbed as violence?

Benazir’s government is trying to project itself as the defender of the parliament and its supremacy, while the Jama`at-e-Islami and the opposition have been criticised as subverting the parliamentary system. Mohtaram Qazi Hussain Ahmad, Amir Jama`at-e-Islami has been singled out as one guilty of committing contempt of the parliament. He is being condemned for criticizing those members of the parliament who have brought bad name to it. He has been debunked for saying that the sacred institution of parliament has been reduced to a house of evil because of the misdeeds and misdemeanor of its present occupants.

The Jama`at’s Commitment to Constitutional and Democratic means

Nobody would be happy to criticise members of a house which we all regard as the custodian of the political power. The Jama`at has always stood for the democratic institutions and traditions. It is a cardinal policy of the Jama`at that change should come through the constitutional process and that elections are the proper mechanism for change of leadership. The following quotations from the Jama`at policy documents establish this position beyond any shadow of doubt.

The constitution of the Jama`at-e-Islami (Article 5) lays down its approach and permanent method of work very clearly:

"(1) Before deciding on an issue or taking an action, it will seek first the guidance of Allah and His Messenger (p.b.u.h.) on the matter. All other considerations will be taken as of secondary importance in so far Islam allows them.

(2) For obtaining its objectives and ideals, the Jama`at shall never seek means and methods that are repugnant to truth and fairplay or that may cause mischief on earth.

(3) The Jama`at shall pursue democratic and constitutional means in achieving its desired objective of reformation and revolution - that is: to seek awakening of people’s mind and uplift of their character through advice, exhortation, and dissemination of ideas; and prepare public opinion, for those changes that the Jama`at aspires for.

(4) The Jama`at shall not follow the methodology of covert organizations for the realization of its goal; instead, it shall pursue its activities in the open and expressively so."

The Jama`at’s policy document on the process of political change is the members’ resolution adopted at the Machi Goth Conference, February, 1957. A few extracts from this policy document are given below:

" The Jama`at-e-Islami Pakistan is grateful to Allah the Most High that fifteen years ago, while setting out on its journey, the goal it had and the principles it promised to abide by, are still being upheld by it in its forward thrust. In this long and arduous journey, if it has been of help in furthering the cause of establishing Allah’s faith (al-din), then it is because of Allah’s beneficence for which we are grateful to Him. And if there had been some omissions and lapses, it is because of its own failings for which it seeks Allah’s forgiveness and asks for His further guidance and help.

The Jama`at-e-Islami is satisfied with the fact that the action plan of the Islamic movement which the Jama`at’s amir, after due consultation with majlis ash-shura, presented to November, 1951 workers’ general assembly in Karachi, meets the entire ideological and practical needs of the movement in the right proportion. And the same should remain its approach in the future as well.

The first three elements of this action plan (that is, purification and reformation of thoughts, the search for good people, their organization and education, and strivings for collective betterment) had been the essential elements of its methodology since its inception. However, the forms of its concretization have been varying according to the Jama`at’s resources and the objective realities obtainable. The Jama`at now decides that these three elements should be given practical shape, according to the programme annexed to this resolution, until it is superseded by a new collective decision. Besides, this general meeting of the Jama`at instructs majlis ash-shoora, halakas, district and local bodies of the Jama`at that they should stress this programme until it together with the fourth element of the action plan stabilizes the working of the Jama`at.

The fourth element of this action plan, which relates to reforming the political system, has been the main plank of the Jama`at since its inception. If the Jama`at took no practical measures before the partition of [British] India, it was because of the absence of opportunities and lack of resources in addition to the fact that there were certain shari` inhibitors integral to the then system militating against our objective.

When after Pakistan’s coming into being, Allah the Most High extended both opportunities and means as well as created the possibilities of removing the shari` inhibitors, the Jama`at added the fourth element, which was the logical demand of its primary objective, to its action plan. After ten years of long struggle in this direction, the proponents of Islamic change, as opposed to the supporters of secularism, have entered a crucial phase. Among the practical issues of life, this has been always the most important question with the Jama`at whether worldly affairs are to be run by the righteous or the wrong doers and whether leadership in society rests with the obedients of Allah or with the rebellious.

From the beginning, the Jama`at has held the view that the goal of establishing Allah’s faith (al-din) will never be accomplished unless the founts of power were held by Islam. At the same time, the Jama`at has always thought that the empowerment of Islam cannot be effectuated with a wink; instead, it is an evolutionary process that seeks completion by a graduated response and a ceaseless conflict between the supporters and opponents of the Islamic system.

The state constitution has acknowledged the basic principles of the Islamic system. The implementation of these acknowledged principles now depends on the change in leadership. For the righteous leadership to be inducted into power, it will be better that, while moving forward, equal emphasis is given to the four elements in such a way that each provides strength to the other.

The amount of work done on the first three elements will help increase Islam’s supporters in the political system of the country. But one thing should stay clear that the imbalance between the four elements (if created) should not become the excuse for deleting or relegating of any of the elements of this action plan. The Jama`at, bound by its constitution, is committed to pursue the democratic and constitutional means for the pursuit of its objectives of reform and reconstruction and, since this kind of reformation and change can be brought about constitutionally only through the electoral process, it cannot therefore stay aloof from the elections. It is a different matter (though) whether participation in elections could be direct or indirect or both. At what occasions which of the three modes of electoral participation is to be sought, the Jama`at leaves the issue to the discretion of its majlis ash shura so that, after taking stock of the situation at the eve of every election, it could decide (the appropriate course of action).

The Jama`at manifesto is also very explicit on these issues. A few excerpts from the 1969 manifesto are given below:

"That is why Jama`at-e-Islami is trying to bring about a change in the system of government by democratic, peaceful and constitutional means so as to convert Pakistan into a state that positively upholds and conforms to the Islamic way of life as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah... a democratic state in the real sense of the term wherein governments will be formed and changed through fair and free elections and nobody may come to or remain in power without a genuine popular sanction".

Jama’at, Parliament and Politicians

Parliament is an august institution. No one can debunk this institution as an institution. Qazi Sahib or any leader of the Jama`at has never done so. But an institution is as good or as bad as are its occupants. A team is known by the players it is made of. If those who occupy an august institution like the Majlis as-Shura or the provincial assemblies or for that matter, any institution, university, hospital, judiciary, police administration and fail to come up to the minimum standard they are asked for, it is they who demean such an institution. Nothing is wrong with the pool, it is the rotten fish that spoils it. Again, a well is meant to be a source of clean water. But if a dead animal falls into it and the well is described as dirty and unhealthy, it is not a criticism of the well as such but of what pollutes it. The aim is to cleanse it and restore its purity and usefulness.

Qazi sahib’s criticism of the assemblies is not an unusual utterance. This is an accepted practice in politics and literature. Hobbes description of the state as leviathan and Dante’s Divine Comedy are full of descriptions symbolizing what he thought to be satanic images. Such descriptions are integral to the politico-literary legacy. Shakespeare’s masterly portrayal of the Jewish institution of interest-based money lending — today’s ‘noble’ art of banking — by its personification in the character of Shyllock is now a classic. Iqbal’s description of the League of Nations as a "vulgar mistress",his portrayal of the Paris Mosque as a "house of idols" and of politicians, as "Satan" are not exercises in vituperation but perceptive critiques of sensitive institutions. Senator Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, president Muslim League, Punjab, commenting on the government bill on accountability and its provisions about censure of judiciary, is reported to have said that "thirty-two thieves to remove a judge from the bench". To blast all the guns against the Qazi Sahib and conveniently forget the entire grammar of politics cannot be described as fair.

It is only in the interest of these institutions that serious criticism must be made of all the failures of those who occupy them and of all those malpractices and abuses of powers which destroy the sanctity of the ballot box, and besmirch the authority and credibility of parliament and its organs. If the election process is subverted through rigging and use of force, then criticism of such elections cannot be taken as debunking of the electoral process rather exposing those efforts which tarnish it. What has been done in the occupied Kashmir and has been criticised all over the world is the destruction of the electoral process. The objective is to expose their malpractices which amount to its raping. Similarly if a large number of the members of parliament fail to fulfill their duties, they are to be held accountable for they bring bad name to the institution. If the government adopts policies which marginalise parliament or demean it, it is the government that has dishonoured it. If corruption is rampant, loan defaulters roam around the corridors of power, parliamentarians are busy in seeking personal favours, perks and plots, they are manipulating appointments, transfers, and misusing developmental funds, then what else can be the description of such a situation. Yes they are all honourable men! It is only parliament that has been turned into a house of evil. And if someone has the courage to say that the emperor has no clothes, should he be punished? It is a pity that showing mirror to those who are responsible for this appalling situation invites rage upon the mirror. By abusing or even throwing away the mirror, can we get rid of our ugly spots? Send Qazi Sahib to the gallows. But how would you silence the whole world? The festering sores of our body politic have been reported by all those who have some real concern for the welfare of this country and its people and who do not belong to the coterie of vested interests. Even foreign observers have come out with similar description. How can you run away from your own shadows?

A perceptive political scientist, late Prof. Keith Callard of the McGill University, Canada in his work Pakistan: A Political Study (George Allen and Unvin, London) had long ago put his finger on the malaise that infects Pakistani politics:

"For a politician who wants to survive, when the leaders change, loyalties change too. An observer who is not accustomed to Pakistani politics is apt to be surprised at the ease with which a leader can be assured of the undying loyalty of his supporters to find on the following day that his supplanter in office has been greeted with unanimous enthusiasm..."

"A politician must also consider the man who control blocks of votes in local areas. There can be little doubt that jagirdars and zamindars, pirs and mirs, mukhdooms, khans and nawwabs retain vast political influence. A glance through the lists of numbers of legislative assemblies shows how many such hereditary leaders or their near relatives are active in political life." (pp. 49-50)

Summing up the tragedy of Pakistani politics Prof. Keith says:

"The weakness of parliamentary government has been the failure of the elected politicians to make the system work. Ministries have been overthrown by intrigues backed by threats, rather than real violence. Holders of political offices have shown themselves unscrupulous. ... If representative government collapses it will be because its legs are not strong enough to sustain its own body". (pp. 328-329)

This statement remains as true today as when it was made in 1957, before the first martial law.

Qazi Sahib is not alone in exposing the true face of the political leadership of the country and the total disenchantment of the common man in respect of those who were handed over a great trust and have totally failed to fulfill its demands. This disenchantment is almost universal, excepting of course those who are responsible for the mess. Let us see what is being said about the present state of Pakistan in the national and international press.

Qazi is not Alone: Consensus view

Anthony Spaeth, in a write-up in the Times Magazine (September 16, 1996) says:

"She [Benazir] has a secure majority in the Assembly and an unshakable belief in her right to govern Pakistan. But it’s becoming harder and harder to find others who share that conviction. Disappointment with Bhutto extends from the average Pakistani, hit with a slew of new taxes, all the way up to President Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari, a member of the prime minister’s own party, who recently suggested he might use his constitutional power to dismiss the government. Her famously fractured opposition has managed to unite in a 15-party coalition called the Save Pakistan Movement. The grouping is wobbly, but its mere existence is remarkable: the last such combine was 19 years ago. The International Monetary Fund is unhappy with the government’s handling of the economy - it has withheld an important $600 million loan - and so is Khan Muhammad, 45, a truck driver in Karachi. "This government is corrupt," he says "We will topple it". ...

But her record has won unfavorable reviews from the air-conditioned drawing rooms of Pakistan’s hypercritical elite as well as the slums and villages. "In the past, political tussles were within the power structure," says Ahmed Rashid, a newspaper columnist in Lahore, "This time it is the people who are angry". ...

The most pervasive complaint against Bhutto’s government is that it is corrupt. The charge is hardly new in Pakistani politics, but Bhutto is accused of outdoing her predecessors, and many of the charges are hurled at her spouse Asif Zardari, a polo-playing former businessman. ...

During her first term, Bhutto was accused of elevating official bribery to historic levels, and her dismissal was on grounds of corruption; successor Nawaz Sharif faced the same allegations. Zardari was arrested on multiple charges in 1990 and spent two years in jail; none of the complaints were ever proved in court. Rhetoric aside, even the least sophisticated Pakistani knows that a river of rupees, wide and muddy, flows under the tables where government approvals are stamped or national assets are sold off to private businessmen. ...

And though Zardari collects much of the thrown mud, he is only first among equals in a collection of tarnished government figures. Haji Muhammad Nawaz Khokhar, for example, was arrested last year for fraud. At the time, he was an opposition member of parliament. After switching sides and joining Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party, his court case went into hibernation. He is now Minister of Science and Technology." (Pp. 18-20)

The Wall Street Journal (Europe Edition) editorially comments upon the " Pitiable Pakistan", (September 24, 1996) as follows:

"In Benazir’s case, arrogance of paranoiac proportions is leading her to political doom. Faced with a temporarily united opposition, reluctant IMF lenders and assessments at home and abroad putting Pakistan at the top of the world’s most corrupt nations lists, any other leader would be trying to mend her ways. Instead, Ms Bhutto continues to blame everyone but herself for Pakistan’s woes. She recently named her husband - dubbed ‘Mr. Ten Percent’ by a Pakistani public that fairly or not sees him as a symbol of corruption — Minister for Investment."

Dawn columnist Ardeshir Cowasjee opens up his heart, nay that of every Pakistani, when he writes under the title "The Public Perception":

"The thinking people of Pakistan believe their country is viable, that nature has gifted it with sufficient resources, that its people if well-educated and well-led can be industrious and productive.

The thinking people of Pakistan loathe the plunderers, the liars, the cheats, the fools and the charlatans who claw themselves into power and have, over the years, rocked and weakened the country’s very foundations until we find ourselves where we are today, nearing rock-bottom...

The President — Sardar Farooq Ahmed Khan, Tumandar Leghari, a perfect partyman for two and a half years from December 1993, has been forced by circumstances (or otherwise) to find his feet...

The Prime Minister — The least said about her family, the prowlers in her kitchen cabinet, her sycophants and bag — carriers in her secretariat, the better. None of them can mend their ways. She has no remorse. She admits to no faults. Her word now carries no credibility with the people, the President, or the IMF.

The Parliament — The people say to those that sit therein what Oliver Cromwell said to the Rump Parliament in 1653, "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go." But remain in the country till the accountability commissioner catches up with you."

A couple of weeks earlier Cowasjee articulated the agony of the people on the bleakening of the face of Pakistan by its leadership "The Party’s over", Dawn, 11th October, 1996, as under:

"The robbed, depressed people of Pakistan do not deserve the government they have, voted in through a pre-planned ‘free and fair’ election. In no way do they deserve the headlines over editorials in the foreign Press such as: "Pitiable Pakistan" (The Wall Street Journal); "Her own worst enemy - The Bhutto clan has mortgaged Pakistan’s future" (The Times). Note the contents:

* "If these trends [seemingly unstoppable descent into political and cultural bankruptcy] cannot be reversed soon all Pakistan may have left is its own fate as a grim warning to others."

* "In Benazir’s case, arrogance of paranoiac proportions is leading her to political doom. Faced with a temporarily united Opposition, reluctant IMF lenders and assessments at home and abroad putting Pakistan at the top of the world’s most corrupt nations lists, any other leader would be trying to mend her ways. Instead, Ms Bhutto continues to blame everyone but herself for Pakistan’s woes.

* "Ms Bhutto blames everyone but herself. ...President Farooq Leghari has finally lost patience — above all with the corruption that underpins feudal privileges. He demands the creation of a special judicial panel to investigate corruption charges against politicians and officials. Miss Bhutto who recently appointed her much-suspected husband Investment Minister — a job which is singularly open to corrupt inducements — retorts that nothing of the kind is needed".

M.B. Naqvi arguing that the "failure is ours, not the systems" highlights some of the obnoxious elements of our polity: In Dawn, October 9, 1996 he writes:

"Doubtless, a PM’s power seems unlimited under the British model. What made for Bhutto’s despotism was the parliament becoming a rubber stamp in his hand. He ordered the deputies around as well as used secret agencies to keep them in line. He simultaneously kept the legislators terrified and on tenterhooks, expecting favours. In those five years fundamental rights were not enforceable even for a week. That is how it was a sham and not democracy. That is why the people associate the 1973 Constitution with reducing the president to a cipher-like president that Chaudhy Fazal Elahi was... Let us carefully examine why, in Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s days, did the NA remain supine and pliable? Why did its members, except for some of the opposition, remain quiet and allow themselves to be cynically manipulated? That does not happen in democracies. Some will say: our parliament is no better today. Many members are politically irresponsible and morally derelict, being ready to be bought and sold. In the light of these facts, can we still opt for the parliamentary system?

Ayaz Amir in his "Islamabad diary" writes under the revealing title of "A Passion for the truth" (Dawn, October 21, 1996):

"These three years were not easy for us. We had been in minority in the Senate. We have had a coalition government in Punjab and at the Centre. It required hard work and skills to bring it to three years. I am also thankful to my MNAs who cooperated with us in our efforts to give good governance and work on our agenda for change. We did depoliticise the postings at the CBR, FIA and the Anti-Narcotics Force... (we think) politics and business are two separate things". - PM Bhutto in an interview with The News.

It requires exceptional courage to make such astounding statements. Not the faintest allusion here to the trail of slime, decrepitude and corruption which, if there is any justice in this world, will be considered as the foremost legacy of the Bhutto regime. Ms Bhutto being grateful to her MNAs for having cooperated in the effort to give good governance to the country. Such audacity robs even the gods of speech.

Asked a few moons ago by a CNN interviewer about the charges of corruption against her government, PM Bhutto, while setting out a long but implausible defense, indignantly responded with the refrain, "And corrupt how?" I do not know about the intereviewer but the nation certainly was left speechless by the self-righteous fury of that response. And now when the land is in turmoil and waiting for things to happen, the PM is claiming credit for good governance...

"Deals, commissions, kickbacks: the saga woven around these profitable ventures is infinitely richer (if also more amazing) than the tactical blunders which have tied the hands of the Bhutto government. The government is paying a price for its blunders. Will that day dawn when it is made to pay for its other misdeeds? Pakistan has always been robbed. That down the years has been its unalterable fate. But robbed on this scale and with such zeal. It would take a new Arabian Nights to fully capture the spirit of these times."

Hussain Naqi, an apologist for the secular and so-called progressive elements and an inveterate critic of the Islamists, observes almost in desperation ("The Power Game," The Nation, October 27, 1996):

"This time, it was hoped, the representative rulers will march ahead by strengthening the democratic base and adopting democratic practices for the promotion of democratic values and rule of law. Instead, the returning incumbents got busy with their new power-game, planned by superannuated corrupt and corrupting bureaucrats domineering the political scene. Sooner than later, it became transparent that corruption had touched Islamabad peaks and once again the game masters pressed intelligence outfits into services.

This game is going on at a fast pace and all the muck is being delivered at the Prime Minister’s doorstep. Latest stuff included the slain and profusely-bleeding body of Prime Minister’s own kin and a member of the Sindh cabinet deposing before the Supreme Court that she was sworn-in under duress. The beleaguered Prime Minister, for whom the stakes are getting higher by every passing week, if not day, is struggling hard to fight back by raising her adversaries’ stakes as high, or even higher, as her’s. The outcome is becoming obvious. Benazir Bhutto may lose her battle, democracy won’t. For the only option to democracy and elected representative rule is anarchy and fratricide, with consequences unpredictable."

Inayatullah puts his finger on the real malaise that plagues the system when he wrote on the forced induction of Feroza Begum in the Sindh cabinet: (The Nation, A Personal View, October 28, 1996).

"Democracy is anchored in freedom and justice. It is not a free-for-all. It works within certain parameters and principles. The constitution of a country sets these principles and parameters. It also provides necessary mechanisms and institutions...

Feroza Begum is an eminent citizen of Karachi, she is the mother of a former member of the Sindh Assembly. She herself is an MPA. On the 20th of August, 1996, the said [her] son was arrested by the police and detained at a police station. The worried mother was keen to know his whereabouts. She visited a number of police stations. She finally found out where Osama, her son, was being kept. She herself was forcibly detained and locked up for two days. Earlier she was advised to sever her links with her political party. A police officer kept harassing her to agree. While in the police station, she finally was persuaded in the interests of her son and other members of the family to join the provincial cabinet and became a Minister...

The constitution emphatically stipulates that the State shall exercise its powers and authority "through the chosen representatives of the people." Can we concede that a government is following the provisions of the constitution when its minions lock up an elected representative (of the people) in an arbitrary manner and force her to compromise with her political loyalties?

Take the case of the recent killer "mini-budget." How was the decision taken? Were the chosen representatives of the people consulted? Leaving aside the chosen representatives, the budget was announced by a paid employee and not even by the finance minister or her adviser. The way the state minister of finance made a fool of himself on the Senate floor with a display of total innocence and ignorance of the new budgetary measures could legitimately find a place in the Guinness Book of Records. No taxation without representation as a principle of relationship between the rulers and the ruled provided a firm rationale for Americans to win freedom from the colonial British masters.

Lawless Russian Czars and a power-drunk Shah in Iran faced an ignominious end and triggered bloody revolutions when through ruthless exercise of power they created conditions for their own extinction. Imposing the crushing burden of taxes without consulting the people’s representatives is a violation of the constitution.

Inayatullah writing a week earlier (The Nation, October 21, 1996) highlights certain gruesome facts and raises some pertinent questions about the system:

"Strange and startling things are happening in this hapless country of ours.

One, a citizen in Karachi, a young man by the name of Osama Qadri is picked up by the police, detained and allegedly tortured. His mother, a Member of the Provincial Assembly, protests and complains to the authorities. She fears that her son may be killed in a contrived "police encounter". Out of the blue, one fine morning she is appointed as a minister in the Sindh Cabinet. The inference is that she was willing to compromise her political loyalties to save her son’s life. She has yet to be assigned a portfolio. An intrepid columnist focuses on the matter and appeals to the Supreme Court to take cognizance of it. Our reborn Judiciary responds. The court is now seized of the case.

Two, a Chief Minister makes a bee-line to a police station and rescues the son of one of his Advisers from official custody. The rescued young man was caught by the police for driving a ‘number-less’ vehicle without a driving licence and when asked to stop had run through the traffic-barrier. The police is blamed and the concerned officials dealt with.

Three, a protest rally in Rawalpindi-Islambad was fired at. Three citizens were gunned down and many more injured. The aggrieved party has, after many weeks, so far failed to get a FIR registered.

Four, the brother of the prime minister, also the head of a political party, is surrounded by the police near his house and along with seven others including the brother-in-law of a former prime minister, targeted and killed. The widows of the deceased having failed to get a FIR registered have submitted a petition to the High Court to help them exercise their basic right of lodging a report to the police.

Five, a member of the Opposition in the National Assembly is arrested on charges of misconduct, misuse of funds and jailed. A little later after some persuasion, he agrees to ditch his links with his party. He is released and after some time is elevated to the rank of a Cabinet Minister while the case for which he was charged earlier is still pending in the court. Others, somewhat similar charged, are rotting in prison.

Six, an important minister in the Punjab is threatening to resign because his department has been divided amongst three ministers to accommodate greedy MPAs who may otherwise have caused trouble for the ruling group.

Seven, an ex-chief minister is fighting a case in the court against his unconstitutional ouster which involves alleged misuse of authority on the part of the governor and the federal government.

Eight, an international loan-giving agency is arm-twisting the sovereign government of the seventh largest state in the world and despite repeated reports of compliance and humiliating "audiences", is unwilling to lend any more dollars. Obediently the government has committed itself to introduce drastic policy changes without even seeking a formal nod from the poeple’s representatives in the National Assembly.

Nine, not only have in the largest province of the country, the constitutional powers of the chief minister been whittled down and clipped away, a "troika" rules the roost (a chief minister, "senior minister" and a constitutional governor) thus making a nonsense of the system of governance, as laid down in the constitution.

Ten, soon after a back-breaking budget, the government repeatedly resorts to raising the rates of utilities, announces rupee devaluation and unabashedly borrows billions of rupees four times the budget-sanctioned amount. While the mounting prices and the falling rupee has literally crushed the common man, to please foreign lenders, another mini-budget is already under preparation...

The moot point is:

(a) Whether the present government is in a position to address its lacks and lags and turn a new leaf and so transform itself that further damage to the country, the polity, the economy and the people at large is contained and controlled or;

(b) whether it is beyond the capacity and mind-set of the government of the day, to sincerely reform itself and that its further continuation will only add to the ruination of the economy, the misery of people and the destruction of the national institutions.

If the President is inclined to see the rationale behind the general public discontent, recognise how the international community is fast losing faith in this country, with Transparency International declaring it the second most corrupt state in the world and the World Bank putting us on the pedestal of reportedly three most corrupt countries and the MIG (Merchants International Group) rating us the fourth riskiest economy, take notice of why Imran Khan, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the religious groups and the Opposition are so insistent on a change of government, he surely is duty-bound to do something about the frightening situation the nation is facing today. Finding that the Army, thank God, is not keen to step into rectify the wrongs, the President has already stirred himself and is fast taking matters into his own hands to save democracy and the country. He alone can retrieve order out of the current chaos and take steps to make the system work, under a new dispensation. As things stand, whatever the interim measures,a fresh mandate in accordance with the constitution has become essential. Sooner, the better!"

Nasim Zehra, objectively surmising over the current state of Pakistani politics, comes to a similar conclusion. Writing in The Nation she says:

"This time around the public is reading the prevailing political flux different. There is more sobriety and less hype. As people see the reality for what it is, conspiracy theorists are not in high demand. For political analysts sermonising on causes of the current state of affairs, a captive audience does not come by easy. Even the `expert analyst’ and the one with the ‘inside information’ are not even socially a sought-after commodity.

There is no mystery to what has landed the country in an economic crisis, political uncertainty and administrative chaos. The problems and at least immediate damage-limitation steps required for addressing these problems are obvious...

Among the public there is a five-point consensus. One, that the responsibility for the palpable economic crisis which they experience in the form of killing levels of inflation lies on the shoulders of corrupt parliamentarians and on successive governments — whether civilian or military. Two, there is an urgent need that the corrupt at the top are nabbed, punished and made to return what they have looted from the national exchequer in the form of defaulted loans, kickbacks and bribery. Three, a partisan accountability process is not acceptable and politicians and bureaucrats must present themselves for accountability. Four, the President must exercise his powers to rein in government’s abuse of state power. Interestingly, the President of late, because of the moves he has made to hold the government accountable has now grown in stature in the public eye. Five, there is total support for the judiciary’s role in ensuring that the constitution is implemented in letter and spirit. Gone are the days of criticism of the judiciary’s so-called ‘polictical activism.’ The judiciary is now seen as a ‘saviour’ institution...

Today the 13 crore people who the prime minister claims brought her to power, are not committed to her government’s survival. Their commitment is obviously to a better quality of life for themselves and to the extent that governments fail to deliver on this count, their mandate begins to erode. It is, therefore, not surprising that people are looking towards the Supreme Court and the Presidency than to the Cabinet and parliament as instruments for fulfilling the mandate of public representatives."

These are only a few representative evaluations of the current situation. We have confined ourselves to comments made only during the last few weeks. Reference can be multiplied beyond number. This is the state of affairs. Even the blind would find it difficult not to see, some, of course the honourable gentlemen in power!

This is the tragic state of affairs to which the country has been reduced by the PPP government. Now what the Jama`at-e-Islami, and for that matter the entire opposition, is demanding?

The Jama`at wants the enforcement of the Constitution, particularly its following clauses: Articles 2 and 2(a), 203, 227-230; enforcement of the Objectives Resolution and Islamic provision; Articles 4 and 7-28 (Fundamental Rights); Articles 62 and 63, (Qualifications for Candidates).

Qazi Sahib wants people to think that those who fail to meet the conditions laid down in the constitution, or those who are violating all the Islamic and democratic provisions of the constitution, or who have misused and embezzled public funds, that those who have turned this noble parliament into a ‘house of evil’ should be purged from our body politic. He has never said that all its members are corrupt. Yet who can deny the fact that the current image of these assemblies is disgusting.