Part-I
Standard Operating Procedure
The weekly organ of the CPI(M), People's Democracy, September 2005, declaims, ''The Mitrokhin balloon of lies has been well burst recently. The statement of the secretary of the Bengal unit of the CPI(M), Anil Biswas on September 21 may well perhaps be the last nail on the coffin of the 'archival misdemeanour'. Anil Biswas told the media at the Muzaffar Ahmad Bhavan that 'after having procured the so-called Mitrokhin archives and poring over it, we find no reference of the kind alleged or otherwise, to the late Promode Dasgupta'.''
There are just two short chapters in this book about India. On the very second page of the very first of these, we read, ''As KGB operations in India expanded during the 1950s and 1960s, the Centre (that is, the KGB headquarters in Moscow ) seems to have discovered the extent of IB's previous penetration of the CPI. According to a KGB report, an investigation into Promode Das Gupta, who became secretary of the Bengal Communist Party in 1959, concluded that he had been recruited by the IB in 1947 . Further significant IB penetrations were discovered in the Kerala and Madras parties...''
Did the ''poring over'' not reach even the second page? But this is standard procedure for Marxists — lie outright!
In the full confidence that no one will look up the original material.
The second, adopted this time round by the Congress too, is to just dismiss revelations. Extracts from The Mitrokhin Archive had but to appear in the press, and they, and their favoured commentators pronounced, ''No evidence...,'' ''Fiction...,'' ''An author in search of lies.'' And simultaneously, ''There is nothing new.... These things have been well known for long!'' Well known for long, but require new proof!
The third device also has been on display this time round: paste motives on all concerned. A favourite of Marxists, it has been deployed even by ''intelligence experts'' this time. One of them writes that the book has three aims. The first, he says, is ''To discredit the present Russian leadership.'' Presumably this is accomplished by indirection: as Putin is known to have been in the KGB, as it is well known that he has appointed his former colleagues from the KGB to vital posts across Russia, pointing to what the KGB used to be doing, tarnishes ''the present Russian leadership''. Second, our expert says, the purpose of the Mitrokhin account is ''to drive a wedge between the present leaderships of Russia and India .'' And, third, the British secret service has always been hostile to leaders of the Labour Party in the UK , this has been a plot to discredit the Labour Government and leaders of Britain.
Assume all this to be true, does it amount to a reason for India not to examine what the disclosures spell for our national security and governance? The fourth device is to smear whoever has brought out facts that are inconvenient. ''A former low-grade clerk of the KGB archives,'' they write about Mitrokhin, he was not the head of KGB archives. Assume that to be true: low-grade clerks are as useful sources of information as heads of departments! Mitrokhin was an incompetent officer, they say — if he had been any good at field work, he would not have been assigned to a backroom tending old records. But the point is whether, having been relegated to backrooms, he had access to thoe tell-tale records. Just one who ''stole'' those ''clandestinely obtained'' documents, they say. But does that suggest that the records he transcribed were genuine and valuable or does that establish that they were fakes?!
As it isn't just Vasili Mitrokhin who was involved in this project, the British professor, Christopher Andrew who collaborated in writing and editing the volumes also comes in for the standard treatment. The professor, we are told, ''was alleged to have been embedded in the intelligence agencies.'' He becomes ''the ever-obliging Christopher Andrew.'' The CPI(M) mouthpiece, People's Democracy, is even more elaborate: ''No wonder, these scions (those running the 'corporate media' here in India) have now picked up the Soviet defector's ramblings, which have been put together in a fashion in a book by an English author who is not only not known for his scholarship but also just not known in the academe as a practicing historian.'' That phrase is literally standard issue.
When ''Why?,'' does not work, ask, ''Why now?'' That is the standard device since Lenin's time! And this time too we have had it in full display: Mitrokhin defected in 1992, why is this book being released now, in 2005? demands one of these tele-Communists. In fact, the six cases full of notes that were brought over were examined threadbare for years, and the first volume was printed in 1999! But again, standard.
In truth, there never is a right time to talk the truth about them! Communist journals in India used to be full of glowing accounts about the industrial excellence of East Germany and Czechoslovakia, about the achievements of Ceausescu and his Romania, about the unequalled might of the Soviet Union; about how unemployment had been abolished, how ills that plagued capitalist societies — divorce, crime — were non-existent in Communist countries. If before 1989 you questioned the claims, you were denounced, ''Do you think one-third of humanity is wrong, and you alone are right?'' And after 1989, when the entire Soviet bloc collapsed?
True to form, this time also we read in the CPI(M)'s mouthpiece, People's Democracy, ''The principal reason why this cheap thriller (the phrase for the Mitrokhin record) is being played out in the corporate media now more than ever is not difficult to guess. The recent resurgence of the communists, socialists, and the Left across the globe has certainly made the imperialists press the panic button.... In India, the presence and growth of the CPI(M) has long since been a worry for the ruling classes and their friends and patrons out in the West. The corporate media has, as a willing handmaiden, been periodically albeit regularly feeding out stories maligning the Party and its leadership.''
Facts about Mitrokhin's records:
To gauge the worth of these denunciations, recall that Vasili Mitrokhin defected in 1992. Between 1992 and 1999, his notes were subjected to minute and most careful examination by various levels of the British Government. They scrutinized the information, they examined who to engage as co-author, they weighed how the material ought to be published. Questions such as these were considered by senior civil servants, intelligence agencies, by an interdepartmental committee, by Ministers, by two Prime Ministers. The way the material was handled was subsequently debated in the House of Commons and was examined threadbare by the Intelligence and Security Committee of the UK Parliament. The Committee was tasked in October 1999 to examine whether it had been handled well. The Parliamentary Committee submitted a detailed report in June 2000. This report was debated extensively.
The first volume of the present work was published in 1999. No one in India made the kinds of allegations that are being hurled now. While we are being fed insinuations to belittle Mitrokhin; while we are being fed the line, for instance, that the entire project has been a conspiracy of British intelligence agencies to discredit British Labour Party leaders, this is what Jack Straw, then Home Secretary and currently the Foreign Secretary of the Labour Government - to tarnish whom we are being told this plot has been engineered — said about Mitrokhin. He told the House of Commons on 21 October, 1999,
''....I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman says about Mr. Mitrokhin's courage. It required huge courage to do what he did. I do not doubt that a great many other people working in the KGB during that long period were pretty disgusted with the work that they were asked to engage in, but very few of them had the courage and tenacity to work, as Mr. Mitrokhin did, to record the huge amount of what was passing across his desk and then to make himself known to intelligence agents in Moscow and have himself and his family brought out at considerable risk. I pay tribute to his courage and acknowledge the benefits that the whole of the West has received as a result of his disclosures''
Similarly, the Parliamentary Committee observed, ''The Committee, during the course of the inquiry, had the opportunity to meet Vasili Mitrokhin. The Committee believes that he is a man of remarkable commitment and courage, who risked imprisonment or death in his determination that the truth should be told about the real nature of the KGB and their activities, which he believed were betraying the interests of his own country and people. He succeeded in this and we wish to record our admiration for his achievement....'' But in India, ''a former low-grade clerk,'' one who ''stole documents,'' one who was so incompetent that he had to be consigned to a backroom dusting archives....
Similarly, while in India the account has been dismissed as ''vague'', ''complete fabrication,'' ''fiction'', ''a spy thriller,'' Britain's Parliamentary Committee had this to say about the value of the material that Mitrokhin had brought over, and on which the Mitrokhin-Andrew volumes are based, ''We are aware that the Western intelligence communities are extremely grateful for Mr Mitrokhin's material, which has shown the degree to which the KGB influenced and penetrated official organizations. Historians also find The Mitrokhin Archive of tremendous value, as it gives a real insight into the KGB's work and the persecution of dissidents.''
But in India , to use Lenin's phrase, ''a shroud of angry words to cover inconvenient facts''! The one question we should be asking, is not being asked: Indian and British intelligence agencies have had close relations; was the material offered to us, as it was offered to other agencies? What did we do about it?
Instead, all sorts of red-herrings are being thrown in the way. Why was this unknown professor, why was this person who was ''alleged to have been embedded in intelligence agencies,'' why was he of all persons chosen as co-author? It just so happens that this question too was examined by the UK Parliamentary Committee. It concluded that in Professor Christopher Andrew of Cambridge University, just the right man had been chosen for the project. Andrews had previously worked on the Gordievsky books. He had been security cleared and had signed the Official Secrets Act, the Committee noted. ''The Committee regards Professor Andrews as a distinguished academic who has specialized in the espionage field,'' the report stated. ''He was a good choice to undertake this work.'' But in India....
Part-II
A society and state in denial In his justly famous memoir, Encounters with Lenin, (Oxford University press, 1968) Nikolay Vladislavovich Volsky, who wrote under the pen-name Valentinov, narrates what is for Communists the hadis in such matters. He recounts what Lenin said to him: ''Marxism is a monolith conception of the world, it does not toler ate dilution and vulgarisation by means of various insertions and additions. Plekhanov once said to me about a critic of Marxism (I've forgotten his name) 'First let's stick the convict's badge on him, and then after that we'll examine this case.' And I think we must stick the convict's badge, on anyone and everyone who tries to undermine Marxism, even if we don't go on to examine his case. That's how every sound revolutionary should react.''
As that is the operating procedure for the much lesser offence — that of mere ''dilution'' of the doctrine — you can imagine how much greater must be the zeal with which the ''convict's badge'' is stuck on one guilty of the much greater crime — the crime of revealing the truth about them.
In a word, we should see that the put-on derision with which Communists and the Congress spokesmen have been trying to bury Mitrokhin's records is just standard procedure, and not let it deflect us from the revelations. For there can be no doubt at all that, as far as India is concerned — our governance, our national security — Mitrokhin's records point to the gravest danger. Remember that the two brief chapters in this volume are but the distillation of trunk-loads of scrupulous notes taken down over twelve years. Even this briefest of brief accounts speaks of penetration by foreign agencies of departments of our Government, including intelligence agencies; of Mrs. Indira Gandhi's coterie; it speaks of the foreign agency's intervention in what we regard as our hallmark, our ''free and fair'' elections; it speaks of the confidence with which the agency maneuvered to build up preferred successors to Prime Ministers; it speaks of funding of Left parties, of trade unions, of the Congress itself; it speaks of how one of the prides of that period — Indo-Soviet trade — became such a handy channel for secret funds; it speaks of infiltration of our other hallmark, our ''free and fair'' media — it recounts the ease with which the KGB and the CIA were able to plant stories; it speaks of the ease with which, and the paltry sums for which the KGB was able to organize ''spontaneous demonstrations'' by Muslims....
Consider just a single paragraph from the chapter: ''Oleg Kalugin, who became head of FCD Directorate K (Counterintelligence) in 1973, remembers India as 'a model of KGB infiltration of a Third World Government': We had scores of sources throughout the Indian Government — in intelligence, counterintelligence, the Defence and Foreign Ministries, and the police.' In 1978, Directorate K, whose responsibilities included the penetration of foreign intelligence and security agencies, was running, through Line KR in the Indian residencies, over thirty agents — ten of whom were Indian intelligence officers. Kalugin recalls one occasion on which Andropov personally turned down an offer from an Indian minister to provide information in return for $ 50,000 on the grounds that the KGB was already well supplied with material from the Indian Foreign and Defence Ministries: 'It seemed like the entire country was for sale; the KGB — and the CIA — had deeply penetrated the Indian Government. After a while neither side entrusted sensitive information to the Indians, realising that their enemy would know all about it the next day.''
Even if we have become so immune to shame by now that we are not led to hang our heads on reading a passage such as this, at least we should consider what that kind of information implies for our national security. Moreover, as the KGB had such ingress into our governmental structures, agencies of other countries too would have had no greater difficulty in suborning persons and influencing policies and decisions. And can that surprise us? When every corporate house is able to plant stories, what difficulty would a foreign government face? And remember, that passage is about the state of affairs thirty years ago. Since then, there has been a precipitate deterioration in both the quality and integrity of persons in public life as well as in the civil service.
For none of the things that Mitrokhin records is the KGB is to blame. That agency was just doing its job for its country. The question is, what were we doing for our country? The question is, what are we to now do to protect our interest? Recall what the British Parliamentary Committee reported about the worth of Mitrokhin's disclosures, and how invaluable these had been to agencies of other countries to neutralise dangers those countries faced — ''Western intelligence communities are extremely grateful for Mr. Mitrokhin's material...,'' ''a case of exceptional counter-intelligence significance, not only illuminating past KGB activity against Western countries but also promising to nullify many of Russia's current assets''.... ''the most detailed and extensive pool of CI (counter-intelligence) ever received by the FBI''.... ''the biggest CI bonanza of the postwar period'' — contrast these acknowledgments, contrast the way agencies of other countries put the material to work, contrast all that with the resolute shutting of eyes in India.
Several lessons leap out from this episode. Notice first what the Communists, their megaphones and their current dependents would have been blaring had even one-thousandth of such disclosures come out about some organization or individual affiliated to the RSS. Two points arise from that contrast. First, is such penetration a threat to our national security if it relates to the RSS and not a threat when it relates to the Communists or the Congress? Second, where do the disclosures leave the high moral ground that the Left appropriates?
It is entirely true that just because someone is named by a foreign intelligence agency or agent, that does not establish him to have been a spy. But surely the right response would be to inquire, at least to find out whether British agencies had offered the information to us and we had failed to follow it up. Nor is this a one-off. Professor Patrick Moynihan was one of the most respected of American academics. He was appointed Ambassador to India during Mrs. Indira Gandhi's time. As Mrs. Gandhi's speeches about the ''foreign hand'' — that always meant the CIA — became incessant, Moynihan commenced an inquiry into what Americans had been doing. In his memoir of the period he wrote that he came across two occasions on which the CIA had provided funds to counter Communist candidates. He wrote, ''Both times the money was given to the Congress Party which had asked for it. Once it was given to Mrs. Gandhi herself, who was then a party official.'' His book was published in the US as well as in India . If what he had said was untrue, what could be a clearer occasion for a defamation case? But absolutely nothing of the kind was done. Just the standard operating procedure: denounce, smear, bury. When the Government so resolutely refuses to make any inquiries, whether the account is of Moynihan or Mitrokhin, what should one conclude?
In the case of the Communists, disclosures about their having received money are the least of the matter — and it does seem to me that the Mitrokhin figures are gross understatements, as if some few zeros have got left out. The figures of Indo-Soviet trade, the quantum of Indian purchases of Soviet arms, and what was said in those days of the sudden wealth of the private parties through whom the Soviets insisted these transactions be made, would suggest transfers of much, much larger amounts. But in their case, money is the least of the matter. Their entire outlook, their ''line'' has been foreign, it has been derived from, to use Mao's phrase, ''the dung-heap of textbooks written abroad.'' And, as has been documented time and again, from instructions received from abroad.
As a result, working for the interest of heir ''international movement'', specifically for the ''fortresses'' of that ''movement'' — the USSR, China — is in their very genes. They traduced Gandhiji and the freedom movement from 1939 for not taking advantage of Britain's difficulties — the war in Europe is just an ''Imperialist war'', they shouted; Gandhi is guilty of collaborating with the Imperialists by not launching a movement to liberate India when Britain was caught defending itself against Hitler. Hitler was, of course, on the side of history then as he had signed a non-aggression pact with Stalin.
Then they switched suddenly — the ''Imperialist war'' became ''People's war'', not because India 's interests had changed but because Hitler had attacked the Soviet Union. They now denounced Gandhi for launching the Quit India Movement! And there was no doubt about the reason: the Soviet Union is ''The Only Fatherland'' for us, they proudly announced in their resolutions, and, in accordance with this new ''assessment'', they entered into a secret understanding with the British Government in India to sabotage the Quit India Movement. In 1947, apart from the Muslim League, they were the only party that advocated the vivisection of India. When India became independent, they declared that India was in fact still under the tutelage of capitalist, Imperial powers, and so its Government must be overthrown.
In 1962, their thesis was that India is the aggressor, not China — which, by definition, could never launch aggression as it was a ''workers' State''. In 1975, they — they, we now see, at the goading of their KGB minders - were all for the Emergency. When China exploded its atomic bomb, they proclaimed it to be a great triumph — a fitting answer to the Imperialists, a decisive step that breaks the monopoly of Imperialist powers. When India went in for atomic weapons, they denounced it — a blow at world peace!
The Mitrokhin disclosures are particularly disturbing for them as they remind us once more, among other ''well known'' facts, of how they and their fellow-travelers, unable to work their Revolution, worked at securing the same goal by infiltration — of the Congress; a sort of ''Revolution-by-stealth''. This was the famous ''Kumarmangalam thesis'' that, as Mitrokhin reports, got such enthusiastic assistance from the KGB. But surely that is not just a reminder of what is past. The Communists have never been closer to attaining that goal as they are today — what with a supine Congress so completely at their mercy.
Nor is it just that the Congress is so completely at their mercy. As Swapan Dasgupta pointed out the other day, the danger is twice compounded — the Congress is completely dependent on the Communists, and the Communists are completely compromised. The Communists have been busy denouncing Mitrokhin's revelations. But as Dasgupta points out, there are several other caches that are coming to light. He draws attention to the fact that the private diaries of a former Soviet Ambassador to India, I. A. Benediktov can now be accessed on the Internet — at the website of the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson Centre, Washington, DC ( http://wilsoncentre.org) In these diaries, Benediktov records plaintive pleas of Bhupesh Gupta, Secretary, National Council of CPI, for funds. He records Gupta's plea that, with Ajoy Ghosh through whom the monies used to be received and disbursed, gone, Namboodripad should be allowed to be brought in to handle funds from the Soviets.
A little later, during China's invasion of India in 1962, Benediktov records Namboodripad's fevered appeals to the Soviets that they abandon their support for India, and the sycophantic gratitude Namboodripad expresses for an editorial that Pravda has carried that suggests a shift away from India. Namboodripad asks Benediktov to inform the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union ''that the publication of this article and the advice of the CPSU contained in this letter of the CC CPSU, truly will help our party get out of the extremely difficult position it is now in. Before this, there were moments when we felt ourselves to be simply helpless, but now the party will be able to help this situation. We are grateful to the CC CPSU for this help. You can transmit this personally from me and from Comrade B Gupta.'' In a word, the Congress is completely in the hands of the Communists, and the Communists can be ''motivated'' by so many — those who gave them assistance and guidance, as well as those who may reveal what they got, and with how much gratitude they received it.
So, first of all we must see through their invective. As the Government is in their grip; as, given what Mitrokhin records about infiltration into Mrs. Indira Gandhi's circle, of its own accord the Government itself will not want to pursue the matter, inside Parliament and outside, citizens must put pressure on the Government to institute a full and public inquiry. It must be made to request the British Government for access to Mitrokhin's records, and it must be made to make public what those records reveal about India. But we do not have to go on waiting for the Government to do something in the matter. Papers of several senior Soviet officials are now in various archives. We should form teams of scholars on our own and scrutinize that heap of material for entries that pertain to India.
These are important steps, and they must be taken. But even they are but tiny ancillaries to the main debility we must overcome. The reaction in India, that is the non-reaction to The Mitrokhin Archive is but a symptom — of a state and society in denial. On every matter — what Pakistan was doing in Punjab; what it has been doing in Kashmir as well as its current stratagem to acquire it ''peacefully''; infiltration from Bangladesh; jihadi curricula; the threat Naxalites pose and their links in Bihar, in Andhra; the threat ULFA poses and its links in Assam; the militarization of Tibet, the modernization of Chinese defence forces and their deadly implications for India; the opportunity that the breakdown of governance in vast tracts like Bihar spells for the country's enemies — on each and every matter, our society and state just do not want to face the facts.
The media must see how it assists in this shutting of eyes. By the current ''your reaction journalism'' for one. Mitrokhin's volume is published. It goes to someone from the BJP, ''Sir, this new book by this Russian alleges..., what is your reaction? In brief.'' And then to a Communist, ''Sir, this new book by this Russian alleges..., what is your reaction?'' Both sides covered. Balanced story on air. End of matter. This is the condition that we have to reverse, and disclosures of the Mitrokhin kind are yet another occasion when we can commence to do so. On each of these questions, at each of these turns, induce readers, compel governments to face the facts, and thereby take steps that would save the country.
(Concluded)
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
The Realities of Pakistan
Arun Shourie
As Mr I. K. Gujral proceeded with his "Gujral Doctrine," a friend in RAW said, "He will rue it by September." As we returned from Lahore, he said, "When Pakistan goes so far out to seem friendly, it is planning something big." As Nawaz Sharif kept bringing one institution after another under his heel -- he enacted a version of our anti-defection law which made legislators his bonded men: they stand disqualified the moment they defy the party whip on any matter; he had the President resign; he removed the Chief Justice; he did away with the Council for Defence and National Security thereby curtailing the Army's role; he put a pious cipher into the presidency -- my friend said, "He will go on rushing forward till he bangs his head into a brick wall. It is his nature."
Each of his forebodings came true: the intensification of terrorist explosions -- in Coimbatore, in Delhi, in a score of other places -- as Mr Gujral strove to bring back the days of his youth; Kargil in the wake of Lahore; Nawaz's eventual confrontation with the Army, and its coup now.
An important lesson: my friend was going by the inherent nature of the State and society in Pakistan, not by what should happen; he was going by the nature of Nawaz, others were going by the premise that, in his own interest, Nawaz Sharif will not cross the limit.
Musharraf's new "Proclamation of Emergency" is the eleventh constitutional scheme for running Pakistan. With the removal of Nawaz Sharif's Government, the old record remains: in its 52 year history, only one elected government -- Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's first round in office -- completed its term: in the next round, mounting turmoil forced Bhutto to declare early elections; he won what was widely regarded as a grossly rigged election; his victory was barely in, and he was ousted by Zia in a coup. A constitutional scholar notes, "The Qaid-i-Azam died in September 1948, and the first Prime Minister, Liaqat Ali Khan, was assassinated in 1951. All other executive Presidents and Prime Ministers have been prematurely removed, while General Zia died in suspicious circumstances in a plane crash. This, in short, has been the constitutional and political history of the country." As a result, for twenty five of the fifty two years since independence, Pakistan has been under Army rule in one form or another.
Such a history conditions the mind. It explains not just why people have accepted the latest coup with such evident "calm". It explains why they have in a sense been looking forward to it, several sections have been paving the way for it -- unmindful of what it will do to them, forgetful of what they had undergone the last time the Army was in control: for months now, politicians -- who must have known, after all, that they would be the first to be out of business once military rule is imposed -- have been urging the Army to step in and "save the nation." As has been the case with every other spell of Army rule, a few months from now people will start swearing at this bout of it also. But when they are under civilian dispensation, they can think of no other solution except to place the country once again in the hands of the Army.
And with what felicity the Supreme Court of Pakistan has legitimized such takeovers: endorsing the fiction put forth by Zia -- the Constitution has not been scrapped, it has merely been held in abeyance -- and proclaimed verbatim now by Musharraf! Martial Law was first imposed in Pakistan in 1958 -- by the then Governor General Iskander Mirza, who in turn was soon turfed out by General Ayub Khan. In what is known as the infamous Dosso case, the Pakistan Supreme Court legitimized the usurpation on "the doctrine of necessity": the doctrine, namely, that when saving the country requires that the Constitution be scrapped, the one who seizes power can scrap it. And the legality of an extra-constitutional seizure is established by the fact that it has succeeded! The weakened Ayub "handed over" -- after much manifest persuasion -- to Yahya Khan in March 1966, and the latter imposed his own Martial Law. During his time the country broke in two. The courts kept deliberating; the Supreme Court eventually struck down Martial Law and thereby the "doctrine of necessity" in the Asma Jilani case -- by that time it was hardly necessary, but perfectly safe to do so!
Zia staged his coup in July 1977. Nusrat Bhutto challenged Martial Law. The Supreme Court endorsed it -- going back in effect to the "doctrine of necessity." Indeed, it provided an Islamic basis for it - repeatedly invoking the Shariat maxim, "necessity makes prohibited things permissible"! The Chief Martial Law Administrator -- Zia -- has said that he is not scrapping the Constitution, that he is merely holding it "in abeyance," the Court noted. He has said that he has been forced to do so "for the welfare of the people," it noted. The supervisory jurisdiction of courts such as ours remains unimpaired, it consoled itself. He has solemnly declared that he will hold elections in three months, it noted. The Court has every hope that he will live up to his word, it declared.
This in a judgment delivered months after that three month limit for holding elections had passed! Lest it be seen to be letting out just half a cheer, the Court proceeded and declared, " ...the Chief Martial Law Administrator, having validly assumed power by means of an extra-constitutional step in the interest of the State and for the welfare of the people, is entitled to perform all such acts and promulgate all legislative measures which have been consistently recognised by judicial authorities as falling within the law of necessity, namely: (a) all acts or legislative measures which are in accordance with, or could have been made under the 1973 Constitution, including the power to amend it..."
Zia put that touching faith to work: soon he mutilated the powers of the judiciary itself, he set up an alternative structure of Shariat courts -- and used it both to frighten the populace, as well as to dump inconvenient judges! In little time he in effect overturned the Constitution -- by mere grafts and "amendments"! And all that too in a strictly "constitutional" manner: Article 16 of his "Constitutional Order" of 1981 provided, "The President as well as the Chief Martial Law Administrator [by the grace of Allah, Zia combined both offices in himself] shall have, and shall be deemed to have always had, the power to amend the Constitution"! And the courts cheered him along -- for ushering in an Islamic order!
That is how Pervez Musharraf can so breezily proclaim as law what is by the text of the Constitution treason to be punished by death. "In pursuance of deliberations and decisions of Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces and Corps Commanders of Pakistan Army," -- an agglomeration unknown to the Constitution -- "I, General Pervez Musharraf, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and Chief of Army Staff," -- another entity unknown to the Constitution -- "Proclaim Emergency throughout Pakistan and assume the office of the Chief Executive of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan." How convenient!
That is how he can so easily suspend all legislatures; dismiss all cabinets; place the entire country in the control of the Armed Forces; declare that the country shall continue to be governed "in accordance with the Constitution", "as nearly as may be", and "subject to this Order and any other orders made by the Chief Executive"; that the courts shall continue to function "subject to the aforesaid"; that fundamental rights shall continue in force, to the extent that they are "not in conflict with the Proclamation of Emergency or any other order made thereunder from time to time"; that the President shall continue, except that "he shall act on, and in accordance with the advice of the Chief Executive"; the courts will continue to discharge their duties, "provided that the Supreme Court or High Courts or any other court shall not have the powers to make any order against the Chief Executive or any person exercising powers or jurisdiction under his authority," they shall continue to discharge their functions except that "No judgment, decree, writ, order or process whatsoever shall be made or issued by any court or tribunal against the Chief Executive or any other authority designated by the Chief Executive"; that all laws shall continue in force "until altered, amended or repealed by the Chief Executive or any other authority designated by him" But this is not Martial Law, he declares in his television address!
That is why he can impose a structure which is wholly outside the Constitution, he can acknowledge plainly that he is setting the Constitution aside -- I had to choose between saving a limb, the constitution, he says, and saving the body, the entire country -- and yet declare that the Constitution is just being "held in abeyance".
And there is not a murmur. In fact, on all counts people are gratified that the Army has rid them of their current obsession -- Nawaz Sharif!
That is one reality we must bear in mind the next time we have to deal with a civilian ruler of Pakistan. The second is the sea-change in the nature of the Army itself: over the decades it has become progressively Islamic. The change in its motto has indeed been symbolic: Jinnah had given the Pakistan Army, "Unity, Faith, Discipline" as its motto; Zia replaced it with, "Faith, Piety, Jihad". By now two other factors have pushed it further in that direction: first, it has spawned, and is now intricately entwined with extremist jihadi groups; second, like them, and with them, it is enmeshed in the one flourishing enterprise of Pakistan -- the trade in drugs.
More important, this jihadisation of the Army itself is but a reflection of the jihadisation of Pakistani society as a whole. Indian liberals interact with the liberals there, and assert that Pakistan has a liberal core: but the latter are an inconsequential, minuscule minority. Moreover, many of them have the closest possible social and family ties with high-ups in the Army. Pakistani liberals often counter by saying, "But the fundamentalists have never received more than 3 per cent of the vote, and look at India -- you people have handed over the entire government to fundamentalists." In fact, no party in India works for establishing the sort of theocratic State to which every party in Pakistan is pledged. And these parties -- to say nothing of the liberals -- do not set the agenda: that is set by the heirs of Maulana Maudoodi.
This progressive Islamisation / jihadisation of Pakistani society and State has had the predictable consequence. It is the jihadi version of Islam which is the touchstone for every move. When a ruler grabs unjustifiable power, he announces Islamic steps to legitimize his dictatorship, Zia being the textbook case. When a ruler runs into difficulties, he announces further "Islamization": from Bhutto in 1977 to Nawaz in 1999.
And as far as Pakistan is concerned, the essence of jihadi Islam is to humiliate and defeat and break India. "Allah ke bagiyon ko mazkaraat se nahin, jihad se he khatm kiya ja sakta hai," the Ausaf of 5 October quotes the Amir of Markaz Daawa wal Irshad, Hafiz Muhammad Sayed as declaring: "those rebelling against Allah can be finished not through dialogues but jihad". The entire earth has to be liberated from the rebels of Allah and their evil, he tells the gathering in Islamabad, polytheists can be eliminated through jihad alone -- and the proof of this is that polytheists were annihilated in Kashmir in spite of the nexus among all the infidels of the world on this front. Talks inflict a setback on jihad, it quotes the Amir of Al Badr, Saifullah Amin as declaring, and keep mujahidin from their destination. The Hindu bania understands the language of the gun alone...
That pitchforks Pakistan into a dilemma, of course. It is in dire economic straits: as Musharraf said, it has "hit rock-bottom." It is literally living from day to day -- not even on loans now, but on the rescheduling of its repayment obligations for what it has borrowed in the past. Its foreign exchange reserves are down to five weeks' imports, foreign direct investment as well as remittances from abroad continue their precipitous decline, portfolio investment has been registering a net outflow, Even though the donors had agreed to a generous rescheduling package enabling Pakistan to postpone repayments until the end of 2001, month after month, the IMF has been compelled to postpone releasing tranches that Pakistan needs immediately. July, then September, then "probably November."
This condition circumscribes options, as is evident from Musharraf's address: he chose to speak in English, not Arabicised Urdu; he has styled himself "Chief Executive" not, as Zia had done, "Chief Martial Law Administrator"; he has asked the ulema to counter the extremist version of Islam. But the more he does to allay apprehensions of the West, the more he abides by conditionalities that IMF etc. will demand, the more he opens himself to the charges that were pasted on Nawaz Sharif: that like him, he is being "pro-India, pro-West, anti-Taliban, anti-jihad." On the other hand, like every single Pakistani ruler before him, to survive, he will have to don more and more Islam. But the more Islamic he becomes, the more he will risk alarming the West further. A bind that should ensure some latitude for us.
There is also the "positive side," so to say. By their demonology they are already pushing closer to us those with whom we should be collaborating. "Allah ne hamari zimmedari lagayee hai," the Ausaf of 7 October quotes the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba declaring, "ki duniya se Isayiyon, Yahudiyon, Hinduyon aur dighar taghooton ki saltanaton ko Allah Akbar ke zarab se pash kar den" -- "Allah has placed a special responsibility on us to eliminate Christians, Jews, Hindus and other evil forces from the world with the blow of Allah Akbar. The USA and other devilish [taghooti] forces are striving to root out jihad from this region" -- they will be crushed, it reports him as proclaiming. "Clinton ko kisi Musalman ka ghulam aur Hillary Clinton ko kisi Musalman ki laundi hona chahiye tha," the paper reports him saying: "Clinton should have been the slave of some Musalman (Muslim), and Hillary Clinton should have been the keep of some Musalman." The Jasarat of 11 October has Maulana Fazal-ur-Rahman, the Chief of the Jamiat Ulema-Islam, declaring Americans to be hypocrites: when militants fought against Russia, Americans honoured them as mujahidin, he declares; when they fight against Hindus to save Muslims from Indian tyranny, Americans dub them terrorists; America is responsible for sectarian killings in Pakistan; under pressure from the Americans the Government [of Nawaz Sharif] is indulging in baseless propaganda against the Taliban, and paving the way for America to invade Afghanistan...
We must not be misled by Musharraf's empty gesture of "troop withdrawal from the international border" -- as the Security Advisor to the Prime Minister has pointed out, this withdrawal had been agreed upon at the meeting of army officers in July itself. Nor by his offer of "unconditional talks" -- in the same address he has declared that Pakistan's "moral, political and diplomatic support" to insurgents in Kashmir will continue -- as Pakistan has never acknowledged that it has been giving any other manner of support, this means that all that it has been doing in regard to Kashmir will continue; he has also repeated in the address that India must ensure "self-determination for the people of Kashmir".
It would be criminal, therefore, to be misled again. Instead we should base our responses on four realities: first, the jihadisation of Pakistani State and society as a whole; second, among sections of society, the Army is more fervently committed to jihad against India than almost any other section -- as Musharraf and his colleague, General Aziz, told each other in the Kargil tapes, the Army has the tuft of the extremist organizations in its hand; third, power now is entirely in the hands of this jihadi institution, the Army; fourth, within the Army, power has fallen to the architect of the Kargil operation.
Israel, with its accustomed clarity, sees the nature of Pakistan. Even the USA is being nudged from its make-believe. But several factors keep it from opening its eyes fully. Its notions of political correctness. The intertwining webs with Pakistan forces and agencies which have been spun over fifty years. The rich man's presumption that everyone can be de-fanged by some doles. The new rationalization: Pakistan is a nuclear weapon State -- if we let it sink, those weapons will fall into the hands of raving lunatics...
So, while in a sense Pakistan itself is preparing the ground for cooperation between India and other countries -- Israel, USA, Russia, Iran and others -- there is a lot of work to be done. Musharraf's coup supplies both -- an opportunity as well as an urgency to the task.
October 18, 1999
The Realities of Pakistan
Arun Shourie
As Mr I. K. Gujral proceeded with his "Gujral Doctrine," a friend in RAW said, "He will rue it by September." As we returned from Lahore, he said, "When Pakistan goes so far out to seem friendly, it is planning something big." As Nawaz Sharif kept bringing one institution after another under his heel -- he enacted a version of our anti-defection law which made legislators his bonded men: they stand disqualified the moment they defy the party whip on any matter; he had the President resign; he removed the Chief Justice; he did away with the Council for Defence and National Security thereby curtailing the Army's role; he put a pious cipher into the presidency -- my friend said, "He will go on rushing forward till he bangs his head into a brick wall. It is his nature."
Each of his forebodings came true: the intensification of terrorist explosions -- in Coimbatore, in Delhi, in a score of other places -- as Mr Gujral strove to bring back the days of his youth; Kargil in the wake of Lahore; Nawaz's eventual confrontation with the Army, and its coup now.
An important lesson: my friend was going by the inherent nature of the State and society in Pakistan, not by what should happen; he was going by the nature of Nawaz, others were going by the premise that, in his own interest, Nawaz Sharif will not cross the limit.
Musharraf's new "Proclamation of Emergency" is the eleventh constitutional scheme for running Pakistan. With the removal of Nawaz Sharif's Government, the old record remains: in its 52 year history, only one elected government -- Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's first round in office -- completed its term: in the next round, mounting turmoil forced Bhutto to declare early elections; he won what was widely regarded as a grossly rigged election; his victory was barely in, and he was ousted by Zia in a coup. A constitutional scholar notes, "The Qaid-i-Azam died in September 1948, and the first Prime Minister, Liaqat Ali Khan, was assassinated in 1951. All other executive Presidents and Prime Ministers have been prematurely removed, while General Zia died in suspicious circumstances in a plane crash. This, in short, has been the constitutional and political history of the country." As a result, for twenty five of the fifty two years since independence, Pakistan has been under Army rule in one form or another.
Such a history conditions the mind. It explains not just why people have accepted the latest coup with such evident "calm". It explains why they have in a sense been looking forward to it, several sections have been paving the way for it -- unmindful of what it will do to them, forgetful of what they had undergone the last time the Army was in control: for months now, politicians -- who must have known, after all, that they would be the first to be out of business once military rule is imposed -- have been urging the Army to step in and "save the nation." As has been the case with every other spell of Army rule, a few months from now people will start swearing at this bout of it also. But when they are under civilian dispensation, they can think of no other solution except to place the country once again in the hands of the Army.
And with what felicity the Supreme Court of Pakistan has legitimized such takeovers: endorsing the fiction put forth by Zia -- the Constitution has not been scrapped, it has merely been held in abeyance -- and proclaimed verbatim now by Musharraf! Martial Law was first imposed in Pakistan in 1958 -- by the then Governor General Iskander Mirza, who in turn was soon turfed out by General Ayub Khan. In what is known as the infamous Dosso case, the Pakistan Supreme Court legitimized the usurpation on "the doctrine of necessity": the doctrine, namely, that when saving the country requires that the Constitution be scrapped, the one who seizes power can scrap it. And the legality of an extra-constitutional seizure is established by the fact that it has succeeded! The weakened Ayub "handed over" -- after much manifest persuasion -- to Yahya Khan in March 1966, and the latter imposed his own Martial Law. During his time the country broke in two. The courts kept deliberating; the Supreme Court eventually struck down Martial Law and thereby the "doctrine of necessity" in the Asma Jilani case -- by that time it was hardly necessary, but perfectly safe to do so!
Zia staged his coup in July 1977. Nusrat Bhutto challenged Martial Law. The Supreme Court endorsed it -- going back in effect to the "doctrine of necessity." Indeed, it provided an Islamic basis for it - repeatedly invoking the Shariat maxim, "necessity makes prohibited things permissible"! The Chief Martial Law Administrator -- Zia -- has said that he is not scrapping the Constitution, that he is merely holding it "in abeyance," the Court noted. He has said that he has been forced to do so "for the welfare of the people," it noted. The supervisory jurisdiction of courts such as ours remains unimpaired, it consoled itself. He has solemnly declared that he will hold elections in three months, it noted. The Court has every hope that he will live up to his word, it declared.
This in a judgment delivered months after that three month limit for holding elections had passed! Lest it be seen to be letting out just half a cheer, the Court proceeded and declared, " ...the Chief Martial Law Administrator, having validly assumed power by means of an extra-constitutional step in the interest of the State and for the welfare of the people, is entitled to perform all such acts and promulgate all legislative measures which have been consistently recognised by judicial authorities as falling within the law of necessity, namely: (a) all acts or legislative measures which are in accordance with, or could have been made under the 1973 Constitution, including the power to amend it..."
Zia put that touching faith to work: soon he mutilated the powers of the judiciary itself, he set up an alternative structure of Shariat courts -- and used it both to frighten the populace, as well as to dump inconvenient judges! In little time he in effect overturned the Constitution -- by mere grafts and "amendments"! And all that too in a strictly "constitutional" manner: Article 16 of his "Constitutional Order" of 1981 provided, "The President as well as the Chief Martial Law Administrator [by the grace of Allah, Zia combined both offices in himself] shall have, and shall be deemed to have always had, the power to amend the Constitution"! And the courts cheered him along -- for ushering in an Islamic order!
That is how Pervez Musharraf can so breezily proclaim as law what is by the text of the Constitution treason to be punished by death. "In pursuance of deliberations and decisions of Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces and Corps Commanders of Pakistan Army," -- an agglomeration unknown to the Constitution -- "I, General Pervez Musharraf, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and Chief of Army Staff," -- another entity unknown to the Constitution -- "Proclaim Emergency throughout Pakistan and assume the office of the Chief Executive of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan." How convenient!
That is how he can so easily suspend all legislatures; dismiss all cabinets; place the entire country in the control of the Armed Forces; declare that the country shall continue to be governed "in accordance with the Constitution", "as nearly as may be", and "subject to this Order and any other orders made by the Chief Executive"; that the courts shall continue to function "subject to the aforesaid"; that fundamental rights shall continue in force, to the extent that they are "not in conflict with the Proclamation of Emergency or any other order made thereunder from time to time"; that the President shall continue, except that "he shall act on, and in accordance with the advice of the Chief Executive"; the courts will continue to discharge their duties, "provided that the Supreme Court or High Courts or any other court shall not have the powers to make any order against the Chief Executive or any person exercising powers or jurisdiction under his authority," they shall continue to discharge their functions except that "No judgment, decree, writ, order or process whatsoever shall be made or issued by any court or tribunal against the Chief Executive or any other authority designated by the Chief Executive"; that all laws shall continue in force "until altered, amended or repealed by the Chief Executive or any other authority designated by him" But this is not Martial Law, he declares in his television address!
That is why he can impose a structure which is wholly outside the Constitution, he can acknowledge plainly that he is setting the Constitution aside -- I had to choose between saving a limb, the constitution, he says, and saving the body, the entire country -- and yet declare that the Constitution is just being "held in abeyance".
And there is not a murmur. In fact, on all counts people are gratified that the Army has rid them of their current obsession -- Nawaz Sharif!
That is one reality we must bear in mind the next time we have to deal with a civilian ruler of Pakistan. The second is the sea-change in the nature of the Army itself: over the decades it has become progressively Islamic. The change in its motto has indeed been symbolic: Jinnah had given the Pakistan Army, "Unity, Faith, Discipline" as its motto; Zia replaced it with, "Faith, Piety, Jihad". By now two other factors have pushed it further in that direction: first, it has spawned, and is now intricately entwined with extremist jihadi groups; second, like them, and with them, it is enmeshed in the one flourishing enterprise of Pakistan -- the trade in drugs.
More important, this jihadisation of the Army itself is but a reflection of the jihadisation of Pakistani society as a whole. Indian liberals interact with the liberals there, and assert that Pakistan has a liberal core: but the latter are an inconsequential, minuscule minority. Moreover, many of them have the closest possible social and family ties with high-ups in the Army. Pakistani liberals often counter by saying, "But the fundamentalists have never received more than 3 per cent of the vote, and look at India -- you people have handed over the entire government to fundamentalists." In fact, no party in India works for establishing the sort of theocratic State to which every party in Pakistan is pledged. And these parties -- to say nothing of the liberals -- do not set the agenda: that is set by the heirs of Maulana Maudoodi.
This progressive Islamisation / jihadisation of Pakistani society and State has had the predictable consequence. It is the jihadi version of Islam which is the touchstone for every move. When a ruler grabs unjustifiable power, he announces Islamic steps to legitimize his dictatorship, Zia being the textbook case. When a ruler runs into difficulties, he announces further "Islamization": from Bhutto in 1977 to Nawaz in 1999.
And as far as Pakistan is concerned, the essence of jihadi Islam is to humiliate and defeat and break India. "Allah ke bagiyon ko mazkaraat se nahin, jihad se he khatm kiya ja sakta hai," the Ausaf of 5 October quotes the Amir of Markaz Daawa wal Irshad, Hafiz Muhammad Sayed as declaring: "those rebelling against Allah can be finished not through dialogues but jihad". The entire earth has to be liberated from the rebels of Allah and their evil, he tells the gathering in Islamabad, polytheists can be eliminated through jihad alone -- and the proof of this is that polytheists were annihilated in Kashmir in spite of the nexus among all the infidels of the world on this front. Talks inflict a setback on jihad, it quotes the Amir of Al Badr, Saifullah Amin as declaring, and keep mujahidin from their destination. The Hindu bania understands the language of the gun alone...
That pitchforks Pakistan into a dilemma, of course. It is in dire economic straits: as Musharraf said, it has "hit rock-bottom." It is literally living from day to day -- not even on loans now, but on the rescheduling of its repayment obligations for what it has borrowed in the past. Its foreign exchange reserves are down to five weeks' imports, foreign direct investment as well as remittances from abroad continue their precipitous decline, portfolio investment has been registering a net outflow, Even though the donors had agreed to a generous rescheduling package enabling Pakistan to postpone repayments until the end of 2001, month after month, the IMF has been compelled to postpone releasing tranches that Pakistan needs immediately. July, then September, then "probably November."
This condition circumscribes options, as is evident from Musharraf's address: he chose to speak in English, not Arabicised Urdu; he has styled himself "Chief Executive" not, as Zia had done, "Chief Martial Law Administrator"; he has asked the ulema to counter the extremist version of Islam. But the more he does to allay apprehensions of the West, the more he abides by conditionalities that IMF etc. will demand, the more he opens himself to the charges that were pasted on Nawaz Sharif: that like him, he is being "pro-India, pro-West, anti-Taliban, anti-jihad." On the other hand, like every single Pakistani ruler before him, to survive, he will have to don more and more Islam. But the more Islamic he becomes, the more he will risk alarming the West further. A bind that should ensure some latitude for us.
There is also the "positive side," so to say. By their demonology they are already pushing closer to us those with whom we should be collaborating. "Allah ne hamari zimmedari lagayee hai," the Ausaf of 7 October quotes the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba declaring, "ki duniya se Isayiyon, Yahudiyon, Hinduyon aur dighar taghooton ki saltanaton ko Allah Akbar ke zarab se pash kar den" -- "Allah has placed a special responsibility on us to eliminate Christians, Jews, Hindus and other evil forces from the world with the blow of Allah Akbar. The USA and other devilish [taghooti] forces are striving to root out jihad from this region" -- they will be crushed, it reports him as proclaiming. "Clinton ko kisi Musalman ka ghulam aur Hillary Clinton ko kisi Musalman ki laundi hona chahiye tha," the paper reports him saying: "Clinton should have been the slave of some Musalman (Muslim), and Hillary Clinton should have been the keep of some Musalman." The Jasarat of 11 October has Maulana Fazal-ur-Rahman, the Chief of the Jamiat Ulema-Islam, declaring Americans to be hypocrites: when militants fought against Russia, Americans honoured them as mujahidin, he declares; when they fight against Hindus to save Muslims from Indian tyranny, Americans dub them terrorists; America is responsible for sectarian killings in Pakistan; under pressure from the Americans the Government [of Nawaz Sharif] is indulging in baseless propaganda against the Taliban, and paving the way for America to invade Afghanistan...
We must not be misled by Musharraf's empty gesture of "troop withdrawal from the international border" -- as the Security Advisor to the Prime Minister has pointed out, this withdrawal had been agreed upon at the meeting of army officers in July itself. Nor by his offer of "unconditional talks" -- in the same address he has declared that Pakistan's "moral, political and diplomatic support" to insurgents in Kashmir will continue -- as Pakistan has never acknowledged that it has been giving any other manner of support, this means that all that it has been doing in regard to Kashmir will continue; he has also repeated in the address that India must ensure "self-determination for the people of Kashmir".
It would be criminal, therefore, to be misled again. Instead we should base our responses on four realities: first, the jihadisation of Pakistani State and society as a whole; second, among sections of society, the Army is more fervently committed to jihad against India than almost any other section -- as Musharraf and his colleague, General Aziz, told each other in the Kargil tapes, the Army has the tuft of the extremist organizations in its hand; third, power now is entirely in the hands of this jihadi institution, the Army; fourth, within the Army, power has fallen to the architect of the Kargil operation.
Israel, with its accustomed clarity, sees the nature of Pakistan. Even the USA is being nudged from its make-believe. But several factors keep it from opening its eyes fully. Its notions of political correctness. The intertwining webs with Pakistan forces and agencies which have been spun over fifty years. The rich man's presumption that everyone can be de-fanged by some doles. The new rationalization: Pakistan is a nuclear weapon State -- if we let it sink, those weapons will fall into the hands of raving lunatics...
So, while in a sense Pakistan itself is preparing the ground for cooperation between India and other countries -- Israel, USA, Russia, Iran and others -- there is a lot of work to be done. Musharraf's coup supplies both -- an opportunity as well as an urgency to the task.
October 18, 1999
As Mr I. K. Gujral proceeded with his "Gujral Doctrine," a friend in RAW said, "He will rue it by September." As we returned from Lahore, he said, "When Pakistan goes so far out to seem friendly, it is planning something big." As Nawaz Sharif kept bringing one institution after another under his heel -- he enacted a version of our anti-defection law which made legislators his bonded men: they stand disqualified the moment they defy the party whip on any matter; he had the President resign; he removed the Chief Justice; he did away with the Council for Defence and National Security thereby curtailing the Army's role; he put a pious cipher into the presidency -- my friend said, "He will go on rushing forward till he bangs his head into a brick wall. It is his nature."
Each of his forebodings came true: the intensification of terrorist explosions -- in Coimbatore, in Delhi, in a score of other places -- as Mr Gujral strove to bring back the days of his youth; Kargil in the wake of Lahore; Nawaz's eventual confrontation with the Army, and its coup now.
An important lesson: my friend was going by the inherent nature of the State and society in Pakistan, not by what should happen; he was going by the nature of Nawaz, others were going by the premise that, in his own interest, Nawaz Sharif will not cross the limit.
Musharraf's new "Proclamation of Emergency" is the eleventh constitutional scheme for running Pakistan. With the removal of Nawaz Sharif's Government, the old record remains: in its 52 year history, only one elected government -- Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's first round in office -- completed its term: in the next round, mounting turmoil forced Bhutto to declare early elections; he won what was widely regarded as a grossly rigged election; his victory was barely in, and he was ousted by Zia in a coup. A constitutional scholar notes, "The Qaid-i-Azam died in September 1948, and the first Prime Minister, Liaqat Ali Khan, was assassinated in 1951. All other executive Presidents and Prime Ministers have been prematurely removed, while General Zia died in suspicious circumstances in a plane crash. This, in short, has been the constitutional and political history of the country." As a result, for twenty five of the fifty two years since independence, Pakistan has been under Army rule in one form or another.
Such a history conditions the mind. It explains not just why people have accepted the latest coup with such evident "calm". It explains why they have in a sense been looking forward to it, several sections have been paving the way for it -- unmindful of what it will do to them, forgetful of what they had undergone the last time the Army was in control: for months now, politicians -- who must have known, after all, that they would be the first to be out of business once military rule is imposed -- have been urging the Army to step in and "save the nation." As has been the case with every other spell of Army rule, a few months from now people will start swearing at this bout of it also. But when they are under civilian dispensation, they can think of no other solution except to place the country once again in the hands of the Army.
And with what felicity the Supreme Court of Pakistan has legitimized such takeovers: endorsing the fiction put forth by Zia -- the Constitution has not been scrapped, it has merely been held in abeyance -- and proclaimed verbatim now by Musharraf! Martial Law was first imposed in Pakistan in 1958 -- by the then Governor General Iskander Mirza, who in turn was soon turfed out by General Ayub Khan. In what is known as the infamous Dosso case, the Pakistan Supreme Court legitimized the usurpation on "the doctrine of necessity": the doctrine, namely, that when saving the country requires that the Constitution be scrapped, the one who seizes power can scrap it. And the legality of an extra-constitutional seizure is established by the fact that it has succeeded! The weakened Ayub "handed over" -- after much manifest persuasion -- to Yahya Khan in March 1966, and the latter imposed his own Martial Law. During his time the country broke in two. The courts kept deliberating; the Supreme Court eventually struck down Martial Law and thereby the "doctrine of necessity" in the Asma Jilani case -- by that time it was hardly necessary, but perfectly safe to do so!
Zia staged his coup in July 1977. Nusrat Bhutto challenged Martial Law. The Supreme Court endorsed it -- going back in effect to the "doctrine of necessity." Indeed, it provided an Islamic basis for it - repeatedly invoking the Shariat maxim, "necessity makes prohibited things permissible"! The Chief Martial Law Administrator -- Zia -- has said that he is not scrapping the Constitution, that he is merely holding it "in abeyance," the Court noted. He has said that he has been forced to do so "for the welfare of the people," it noted. The supervisory jurisdiction of courts such as ours remains unimpaired, it consoled itself. He has solemnly declared that he will hold elections in three months, it noted. The Court has every hope that he will live up to his word, it declared.
This in a judgment delivered months after that three month limit for holding elections had passed! Lest it be seen to be letting out just half a cheer, the Court proceeded and declared, " ...the Chief Martial Law Administrator, having validly assumed power by means of an extra-constitutional step in the interest of the State and for the welfare of the people, is entitled to perform all such acts and promulgate all legislative measures which have been consistently recognised by judicial authorities as falling within the law of necessity, namely: (a) all acts or legislative measures which are in accordance with, or could have been made under the 1973 Constitution, including the power to amend it..."
Zia put that touching faith to work: soon he mutilated the powers of the judiciary itself, he set up an alternative structure of Shariat courts -- and used it both to frighten the populace, as well as to dump inconvenient judges! In little time he in effect overturned the Constitution -- by mere grafts and "amendments"! And all that too in a strictly "constitutional" manner: Article 16 of his "Constitutional Order" of 1981 provided, "The President as well as the Chief Martial Law Administrator [by the grace of Allah, Zia combined both offices in himself] shall have, and shall be deemed to have always had, the power to amend the Constitution"! And the courts cheered him along -- for ushering in an Islamic order!
That is how Pervez Musharraf can so breezily proclaim as law what is by the text of the Constitution treason to be punished by death. "In pursuance of deliberations and decisions of Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces and Corps Commanders of Pakistan Army," -- an agglomeration unknown to the Constitution -- "I, General Pervez Musharraf, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and Chief of Army Staff," -- another entity unknown to the Constitution -- "Proclaim Emergency throughout Pakistan and assume the office of the Chief Executive of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan." How convenient!
That is how he can so easily suspend all legislatures; dismiss all cabinets; place the entire country in the control of the Armed Forces; declare that the country shall continue to be governed "in accordance with the Constitution", "as nearly as may be", and "subject to this Order and any other orders made by the Chief Executive"; that the courts shall continue to function "subject to the aforesaid"; that fundamental rights shall continue in force, to the extent that they are "not in conflict with the Proclamation of Emergency or any other order made thereunder from time to time"; that the President shall continue, except that "he shall act on, and in accordance with the advice of the Chief Executive"; the courts will continue to discharge their duties, "provided that the Supreme Court or High Courts or any other court shall not have the powers to make any order against the Chief Executive or any person exercising powers or jurisdiction under his authority," they shall continue to discharge their functions except that "No judgment, decree, writ, order or process whatsoever shall be made or issued by any court or tribunal against the Chief Executive or any other authority designated by the Chief Executive"; that all laws shall continue in force "until altered, amended or repealed by the Chief Executive or any other authority designated by him" But this is not Martial Law, he declares in his television address!
That is why he can impose a structure which is wholly outside the Constitution, he can acknowledge plainly that he is setting the Constitution aside -- I had to choose between saving a limb, the constitution, he says, and saving the body, the entire country -- and yet declare that the Constitution is just being "held in abeyance".
And there is not a murmur. In fact, on all counts people are gratified that the Army has rid them of their current obsession -- Nawaz Sharif!
That is one reality we must bear in mind the next time we have to deal with a civilian ruler of Pakistan. The second is the sea-change in the nature of the Army itself: over the decades it has become progressively Islamic. The change in its motto has indeed been symbolic: Jinnah had given the Pakistan Army, "Unity, Faith, Discipline" as its motto; Zia replaced it with, "Faith, Piety, Jihad". By now two other factors have pushed it further in that direction: first, it has spawned, and is now intricately entwined with extremist jihadi groups; second, like them, and with them, it is enmeshed in the one flourishing enterprise of Pakistan -- the trade in drugs.
More important, this jihadisation of the Army itself is but a reflection of the jihadisation of Pakistani society as a whole. Indian liberals interact with the liberals there, and assert that Pakistan has a liberal core: but the latter are an inconsequential, minuscule minority. Moreover, many of them have the closest possible social and family ties with high-ups in the Army. Pakistani liberals often counter by saying, "But the fundamentalists have never received more than 3 per cent of the vote, and look at India -- you people have handed over the entire government to fundamentalists." In fact, no party in India works for establishing the sort of theocratic State to which every party in Pakistan is pledged. And these parties -- to say nothing of the liberals -- do not set the agenda: that is set by the heirs of Maulana Maudoodi.
This progressive Islamisation / jihadisation of Pakistani society and State has had the predictable consequence. It is the jihadi version of Islam which is the touchstone for every move. When a ruler grabs unjustifiable power, he announces Islamic steps to legitimize his dictatorship, Zia being the textbook case. When a ruler runs into difficulties, he announces further "Islamization": from Bhutto in 1977 to Nawaz in 1999.
And as far as Pakistan is concerned, the essence of jihadi Islam is to humiliate and defeat and break India. "Allah ke bagiyon ko mazkaraat se nahin, jihad se he khatm kiya ja sakta hai," the Ausaf of 5 October quotes the Amir of Markaz Daawa wal Irshad, Hafiz Muhammad Sayed as declaring: "those rebelling against Allah can be finished not through dialogues but jihad". The entire earth has to be liberated from the rebels of Allah and their evil, he tells the gathering in Islamabad, polytheists can be eliminated through jihad alone -- and the proof of this is that polytheists were annihilated in Kashmir in spite of the nexus among all the infidels of the world on this front. Talks inflict a setback on jihad, it quotes the Amir of Al Badr, Saifullah Amin as declaring, and keep mujahidin from their destination. The Hindu bania understands the language of the gun alone...
That pitchforks Pakistan into a dilemma, of course. It is in dire economic straits: as Musharraf said, it has "hit rock-bottom." It is literally living from day to day -- not even on loans now, but on the rescheduling of its repayment obligations for what it has borrowed in the past. Its foreign exchange reserves are down to five weeks' imports, foreign direct investment as well as remittances from abroad continue their precipitous decline, portfolio investment has been registering a net outflow, Even though the donors had agreed to a generous rescheduling package enabling Pakistan to postpone repayments until the end of 2001, month after month, the IMF has been compelled to postpone releasing tranches that Pakistan needs immediately. July, then September, then "probably November."
This condition circumscribes options, as is evident from Musharraf's address: he chose to speak in English, not Arabicised Urdu; he has styled himself "Chief Executive" not, as Zia had done, "Chief Martial Law Administrator"; he has asked the ulema to counter the extremist version of Islam. But the more he does to allay apprehensions of the West, the more he abides by conditionalities that IMF etc. will demand, the more he opens himself to the charges that were pasted on Nawaz Sharif: that like him, he is being "pro-India, pro-West, anti-Taliban, anti-jihad." On the other hand, like every single Pakistani ruler before him, to survive, he will have to don more and more Islam. But the more Islamic he becomes, the more he will risk alarming the West further. A bind that should ensure some latitude for us.
There is also the "positive side," so to say. By their demonology they are already pushing closer to us those with whom we should be collaborating. "Allah ne hamari zimmedari lagayee hai," the Ausaf of 7 October quotes the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba declaring, "ki duniya se Isayiyon, Yahudiyon, Hinduyon aur dighar taghooton ki saltanaton ko Allah Akbar ke zarab se pash kar den" -- "Allah has placed a special responsibility on us to eliminate Christians, Jews, Hindus and other evil forces from the world with the blow of Allah Akbar. The USA and other devilish [taghooti] forces are striving to root out jihad from this region" -- they will be crushed, it reports him as proclaiming. "Clinton ko kisi Musalman ka ghulam aur Hillary Clinton ko kisi Musalman ki laundi hona chahiye tha," the paper reports him saying: "Clinton should have been the slave of some Musalman (Muslim), and Hillary Clinton should have been the keep of some Musalman." The Jasarat of 11 October has Maulana Fazal-ur-Rahman, the Chief of the Jamiat Ulema-Islam, declaring Americans to be hypocrites: when militants fought against Russia, Americans honoured them as mujahidin, he declares; when they fight against Hindus to save Muslims from Indian tyranny, Americans dub them terrorists; America is responsible for sectarian killings in Pakistan; under pressure from the Americans the Government [of Nawaz Sharif] is indulging in baseless propaganda against the Taliban, and paving the way for America to invade Afghanistan...
We must not be misled by Musharraf's empty gesture of "troop withdrawal from the international border" -- as the Security Advisor to the Prime Minister has pointed out, this withdrawal had been agreed upon at the meeting of army officers in July itself. Nor by his offer of "unconditional talks" -- in the same address he has declared that Pakistan's "moral, political and diplomatic support" to insurgents in Kashmir will continue -- as Pakistan has never acknowledged that it has been giving any other manner of support, this means that all that it has been doing in regard to Kashmir will continue; he has also repeated in the address that India must ensure "self-determination for the people of Kashmir".
It would be criminal, therefore, to be misled again. Instead we should base our responses on four realities: first, the jihadisation of Pakistani State and society as a whole; second, among sections of society, the Army is more fervently committed to jihad against India than almost any other section -- as Musharraf and his colleague, General Aziz, told each other in the Kargil tapes, the Army has the tuft of the extremist organizations in its hand; third, power now is entirely in the hands of this jihadi institution, the Army; fourth, within the Army, power has fallen to the architect of the Kargil operation.
Israel, with its accustomed clarity, sees the nature of Pakistan. Even the USA is being nudged from its make-believe. But several factors keep it from opening its eyes fully. Its notions of political correctness. The intertwining webs with Pakistan forces and agencies which have been spun over fifty years. The rich man's presumption that everyone can be de-fanged by some doles. The new rationalization: Pakistan is a nuclear weapon State -- if we let it sink, those weapons will fall into the hands of raving lunatics...
So, while in a sense Pakistan itself is preparing the ground for cooperation between India and other countries -- Israel, USA, Russia, Iran and others -- there is a lot of work to be done. Musharraf's coup supplies both -- an opportunity as well as an urgency to the task.
October 18, 1999
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)