I love the ACLU. I believe that a person shouldn’t be allowed to run for President of the United States unless they are a card-carrying member (as opposed to our current system where you have to be a member of the NRA). Likewise, I think that Human Rights Watch rocks and that any government that questions their findings or calls them inaccurate are doing so mostly because they are annoyed at being caught doing something pretty heinous. However, unlike some of my co-bloggers, I also think I support Musharraf’s intention to stay in power and am willing to forgive his autocratic moves for the time being. Why? Because countries like Iraq (and a few others I can think of) have taught the world a very important lesson in recent years. Insisting that they quickly transition to a democracy because its what we (sitting in our stable homes) are fortunate enough to enjoy, doesn’t always result in the best outcome for them or us. History has repeatedly shown that a weak central government is sometimes much worse for everyone than a dictator who, despite curtailing personal freedoms, provides stability for the vast majority. The key is that a path to an eventual transition or succession be clearly defined.
The fact that Musharraf has not developed and cultivated a method for succession while he has been busy helping the U.S. fight its war in Afghanistan and Iraq is what has gotten him into trouble.
What was it that went wrong in Iraq? We foolishly believed (and by we I really mean those Neocons) that a community of exiled intellectuals could pick up where a brutal strongman (Hussein) left off. We learned the hard way that exiled intellectuals (like Bhutto and Sharif in the case of Pakistan) are out of touch with the needs of the masses and will end up fighting amongst themselves while emptying the state coffers. Hussein, just like Hitler and Kim Jong Il, was a very bad man responsible for the death of thousands of his own people. That isn’t why we invaded Iraq or decided that they needed to be democratized though. We invaded Iraq in the expectation that we’d bring about greater long-term stability for us (and for them as a secondary benefit). Nobody would suggest that Musharraf is anywhere near as bad as Hussein and the stability he has been providing is not bad, all things considered. And let’s not forget the reason he seized power in the first place and has been popular in Pakistan for most of his tenure:
Nawaz Sharif was also involved in corruption at the highest level during his tenure which brought further mistrust of the people towards his government. The Nawaz government launched a scheme called “Karz utaro, Mulk savaro” whose intent was to pay off debt of the nation through the Pakistani people’s pockets. Pakistanis took part aggressively and emotionally to help Pakistan pay off the debt. Many Pakistanis living abroad took part in this scheme extensively and sent millions (maybe billions) to help pay off the debt. Even the poor living in the country helped, to the extent that women sold their jewellery to help the cause, but to no avail. As of this date, it is not known what happened to the funds and the national debt never decreased. It is widely believed that the scheme was to benefit Nawaz Sharif & family, and not to pay off the country’s debt. [Link]
<
p>Look who we currently have protesting in the streets of Pakistan: lawyers, intellectuals (exiled and in-country), and Islamists. To be clear, I do not condone the jailing of lawyers and judges but Pakistan is not ready for the type of democracy they currently protest in favor of. There is not one shred of proof pointing to a better outcome if elections were to take place, nor a single candidate that one could point to as a competent successor to Musharraf, one likely to provide stability in Pakistan and by extension in Afghanistan and Iraq. On the contrary, Bhutto was almost assassinated within a day of returning. The division of power following an election in Pakistan would be a huge blow against America’s “War on Terror” as well as Pakistan’s continuing effort (although not at 100%) of curtailing the activities of insurgents within its borders and in bringing about a better life for its people. A democratically elected weak central government will benefit nobody except for the well-educated lawyers who may run for office and empty some of those state coffers. I think Musharraf knows that and its why he can’t accept the Supreme Court’s ruling.
American foreign policy experts are not blind to what I am writing here. They were hoping that Musharraf would be able to hold power by at least making a show at democracy. They now have to weakly condemn him because of America’s stated “principles:”
Even before Saturday’s crackdown, U.S. State Department officials said they had struggled with what to do if Musharraf went through with his threat. They didn’t know then, and they don’t know now.
“Frankly, it ain’t easy,” one official said. “We are looking at our options, and none of them are good.”
The United States has pushed for Musharraf to shed his army uniform and hold elections by January. And it repeatedly has told him that his cooperation in the war on terror is not a replacement for democratic reforms…<
p>But officials acknowledge any U.S. response will boil down to one thing: al Qaeda. [Link]
<
p>The situation in Pakistan will now come down to one thing: the common people. If the lawyers can convince the masses that instant democracy is better for them than stability then Musharraf’s days are numbered. If he overreacts or commits violence on a large scale against the protestors, then there is a chance the common people will turn against him. His best short-term strategy now is to maintain stability and normality by keeping a low profile. The longer that he maintains stability the greater the chance he will retain power. In the long-term he must devise and publicize a means for succession, even if it means diverting a bit of his attention away from his obligations to the U.S.
And so I will not yet support an uprising by “the people” in Pakistan against Musharraf. I think it is best to study and understand the situation some more before displaying the same hubris we have in other areas of the world. The past decade has taught us all about the soft naivete of high expectations. Democracy doesn’t just sprout from a seed. You need to keep turning over the soil for a long time and sometimes pray for rain.
Sakshi,
Probably, as I’m in Canada. The perspective here is not nearly as filtered through national interest (though there has been some squeaking about the safety of our troops in Afghanistan). The overwhelming reaction in the mainstream media here is a holier-than-thou horror at the savage dictator’s ways.
Nice way to be an apologist.
Hey, I don’t think the Bush administration is doing a very good idea ruling the US and the world. I also don’t see any viable candidates who I think will turn things around and bring some changes. Mind if we have a coup over here? I hope you’ll be comfortable with a military junta in the White House to control all sorts of pressures within the American society as well as abroad. We can chuck the media, the judicial branch, etc. The Supreme Court judges suck anyway. And first blog to be banned: Sepia Mutiny! How’s that for being mutinous?
Mind if we have a coup over here?
you probably would since the officer corps is 80% republican 🙂
And first blog to be banned: Sepia Mutiny! How’s that for being mutinous?
LOL. wtf? i doubt that SMers are crying about that swipe, they’re not coked up on self-righteous pomposity. don’t extrapolate from your own circles….
Really?
So the majority of the lawywers, judges, human rights activsts, etc who are protesting in Pakistan right now are exiles?
And ask yourself who during America’s independence led the way. A gaggle of rich merchants or the masses?
Abhi, you should also study a little bit before writing a post that in which you take an apologist position. Check up on who’s been propping up the Islamist parties, how not popular Islamist parties have been in Pakistan’s history, the content and course of “elections” in Pakistan, and what democracy would actually mean for Pakistan. And yes, also for your beloved America whose interests you think are more important than the citizens who deal with the reality of a dictatorship.
And that hubris you are talking about that we “display” in “other areas of the world”– take a look at your post here, it’s good example of that.
Here he is brave Horatius, holding the gate against the barbarians.
Razib:
Get the Red Roti out of your ears. You made a comment like this the last time I posted here. I don’t even blog for PTR anymore, so quite responding to me about “my cirlces”, since you don’t have anything else to say.
Banning SM was tongue in cheek. Apparently, it’s okay for us here in the US to have freedom of the press, right to vote, etc, but not Pakistanis. There are lots of people in other countries who get affected by the policies we have in the US, policies that make a mockery out of “democracy,” yet it would be absurd if people argued that we shouldn’t have democracy.
Abhi:
Yes. For India, Nehru came from a peasant family, and Gandhi was herding cows on the plains of South Africa. Neither one was a lawyer, intellectual, or a diasporan at one point in their life. And that is precisely why India didn’t deserve democracy.
Your logic here, please?
And back to the “exiles” bit– who are those exiles besides Bhutto and Sharif? And Sharif hasn’t even really had any actual effects, unlike Bhutto who is presently in the picture. So all those activists and lawyers out on the streets protesting, getting jailed, beaten up, are they “exiles”?
Judging from your criteria and assessment here, I really think India should take on a military dictatorship and forego democracy all together.
Where the hell have you been lately? Have you looked at the polls?
Abhi, you are so mutinous! THANK YOU for bravely saying a sentiment that no one else except major American newspapers, the White House, the State Department, and Pentagon are saying! How did you ever come to be so courageous????? Award to Abhi for dissent! And INFORMED DISSENT on top of that!
Anil and Ikram: nice comments, I agree with all of them. Good to know there are people pointing out all of the fallacies in a “educated” and “informed” post.
Why would that be absurd? Is democracy really the only and the best option? Nobody said there can never be a democracy in Pakistan. Just right now at this moment without knowing more Musharraf seems to be the better option. And who says that the people want Musharraf gone and bring democracy in anyways?
A friend of mine who keeps getting questions about her strict lifestyle always roles her eyes afterwards and says: I’m okay with freedom as long as it’s not shoved down my throat. If people protest en mass against musharaff (and I mean the people not the sensationseekers who don’t have dayjobs and just look for a thrill)and demand a democracy it would be an indication that that’s indeed what they want. At this stage we only know what the laywers want.
Just completly off topic, you had a bad day? You sound harsh. If you are pro freedom of expression how come Abhi can’t have his opinion?
I probably read (and preached) Zinn and Chomsky while you were in grade school. Spare me your one-dimensional, poorly articulated thoughts. If you want to read the writings of people that always agree with you, keep eating your roti.
Alllll we are saaaaying…is give muttar a chaaaaance.
Deep breaths, let’s all take deep breaths. Yowza.
In defense of this dictator? From Asma Jahangir:
Anil, I read this earlier today and it defeats me when anyone condones the general’s actions. People don’t understand what happens when police is given sweeping powers over common citizens – A brief period of emergency in India was smeared in police brutality.
Desi Italiana, I agree with you;
Abhi,
remember in D-Italiana you’re dealing with someone who can’t wrap their arms around the concept of a ‘safe space’ for expressing opinions
I honestly don’t want to take deep breaths because Abhi has not supplied apologia for Musharraf’s specific authoritarian actions during this emergency. He was engaging in a thought-experiment with the concept of a dictator v. instant democracy and the likely aftermath for both outcomes in Pakistan. What we need are less shrill harpie-like shrieks of condescension from commentators who must resort to unproductive thought experiments of their own to ‘rebut’ an argument they see as apologia for authoritarian governing.
Are there any rational-choice theorists out there who could tell us the likely outcome of either of the two options i mentioned earlier?
I totally respect that. I think you know what I meant (after all, you were the only one who understood me here). 🙂
For many, this is very emotional and yes, I do think it is getting harsh in here; unlike your cough, that’s not productive. I think people are talking past each other and in some cases, debating invisible opponents. I know, no one wants to take a deep calming breath, but I still felt the need to cringe while advocating it. Reacting to deplorable violence in Pakistan with verbal violence here makes me sad, that’s all.
Abhi, as frustrating as it must be to face the barrage of attacks you have so far, some of the statements in your post and the failure to back them up in subsequent comments makes for some frustrating reading. Like this:
You say later on that you’ve made an “educated decision” for yourself, but the rest of us aren’t privy to the process which led you here. You haven’t provided any citations or background or anything whatsoever to support, for example, the statement I’ve quoted above.
I don’t know what your credibility is, that a reader can be expected to accept your statements and conclusion without any support.
I’m not clear on what a safe space is in this context. The definition of safe space with which I’m most familiar came from college, when organizations would call safe space meetings which would only be open to the particular community which that organization represented. These were used to hash out issues within the community without “airing dirty laundry,” so to speak (this is a very crude definition, for brevity’s sake).
I don’t know how a public blog (public in the sense of access to the material, not administration) can possibly be considered a safe space, since anyone and everyone can read and comment on it.
For many, this is very emotional
Strange considering that most of them are not Pakistanis and almost none of them (save one or two) actually live in Pakistan.
it is not strange considering that this isn’t the blog that desis living in desh come to in general. thus far i see this as a blog for/from the diaspora.
DesiItalian and others,
Let’s go back to the real reason for having a democracy, and what gives the people the right to demand democracy…
Let’s say that you are living in a desert-island with a few million others. On this island, if people don’t like one ice-cream form one vendor, they vote with their feet and go to another one. If they don’t like one school, they vote with their feet and move to another school. If they don’t like one town, they move to another. If they don’t like one religion, they choose another. At the same time, the people have the freedom to start their own ice-cream place, open their own school, build their own townships and start their own religions – all without interference from the government or the public.
However, if the government itself is corrupt or inefficient – where are they gonna go? They’re on a desert island with no access to outside world. This is where democracy comes in – they get to vote the government out.
The key is – choice.
Going by this, one would think that a populace which either vocally or silently restricts choice on some matters has not necessarily evolved enough to deserve democracy. Any attempts at being democratic will be chequered by brutal dictatorships, since nature does not allow for contradictions.
M. Nam
I think you’re referring to the GLBTQ “safe zones.” They were not, to my knowledge, restricted to those who identified themselves as GLBTQ as many of the providers of such ‘safe zones’ were ‘straight allies.’
My definition of a safe zone is not an exclusive environment in which you feel free to air views considered politically incorrect/impolite in mixed society–it is a forum in which you can opine on emotional responses to real-world events without fear of condescending commentators attempting to pick apart your emotional response as if it was truth-claiming argument.
this thread, obviously, is not such a safe zone–my link referred to a Jindal post that Anna wrote a while back. It seemed, to me at least, that the definition of a ‘safe zone’ was patently obvious. Apparently I was wrong.
“opine on” should be replaced by “offer”
I don’t get it – no one, especially those who author this blog, have asked us vistors/guests to do that. It’s simply Abhi’s opinion. Acceptance or lack of is up to individual readers. We’re given a wide berth to disagree with positions put forth by those who write for SM, but is it really necessary to launch an attack on the individual, as opposed to simply putting forth one’s own opinion and letting that argument stand on merit? Something along the lines of –
I disagree because [enter your own position/opinion/theory here without calling anyone an apologist, uneducated, lame, traitor, bigot, etc.].
i cannot wait for a dictatorship in india to rescue the millions disenfranchised by poverty, illiteracy, feudalism, and the caste system.
i cannot wait for a dictatorship in india to rescue the millions disenfranchised by poverty, illiteracy, feudalism, and the caste system.
There is not a single Muslim democracy, save Turkey, in which Islamism was literally wrenched out of the people. “Liberal” Muslim countries, like Malaysia, are seriously considering reverting to sharia law. India has troubles, but the untouchables have a Chief Minister in the largest state at the moment, the low caste Muslims have nothing but the mercy of their feudal bosses. So don’t hold your breath. Let the Pakistanis “evolve” under their dictator, rather than exporting revolutionary jihad into India.
since when do (hokey and obviously false)aphorisms count for proof?
Abhi:
Abhi, this comment blows me away. You’re so smart. Your thoughts must be too multi-dimensional and well articulated for me to grasp:
I mean, really. So logical. So deep. So sensical.
P.S. I liked the way you didn’t answer any of my comments or questions about your claims and conclusions, but again, you are just too smart for me.
Anil:
Save your fingers from typing. Remember, Abhi was preaching Zinn and Chomsky while you and I were still in grade school. It won’t make any difference.
Sarcasm gets you nowhere.
Heh heh. You said “tater”
Just to be clear, I wasn’t at all implying that Abhi doesn’t care about the kinds of rights violations mentioned in my last comment, and I don’t think it would be fair or productive to accuse him of that. I simply was trying to make one aspect of this discussion more concrete:
Abhi: “In defense of a dictator…, I think I support Musharraf’s intention to stay in power and am willing to forgive his autocratic moves for the time being.” me: Let’s be absolutely clear about who that dictator is and what those autocratic moves are.
It is certainly easier to neglect or overlook the costs of such autocratic moves when we’re talking about these issues in an abstract and rarified way. But regardless of whether we disagree about other dimensions of this issue — disagreements we should be able to assume are made in good faith — I should hope that we can all agree on the need to draw attention to those kinds of rights violations and to seek effective ways of resisting them. Certainly for the four senior members of the Pakistani lawyers’ community mentioned in my comment, time is of the essence in that respect if they are being detained and possibly tortured by Musharraf’s intelligence officials.
Al-chutiya wrote:
almost none of them (save one or two) actually live in Pakistan.
Ghurbat men hon agar ham rehta hai dil watan men, Samjho wahin hamen bhi dil ho jahan hamara!
You just have to hope the dil is in the right place …
This just in from GEO TV:
Let’s all be very clear about the consequences of Musharraf’s “autocratic moves.”
SM Intern, When you have a minute, please check the item linked in #131 above – which is also linked as an item in the news tab. Both are linked to the same blog which has vanished or been taken down. The news item is very serious, if true. But if it’s only a rumor based on a misreading of events, then it should probably not be up on the News Tab.
This is the comment I wrote on it in the news tab.
Chachaji,
I think the person who posted the news item and the comment is a serious commenter, see the blog linked above here.
Chachaji,
I tried looking, the only articles I could find are on the human rights commission website that talk about Munir Malik and other being detained. More here
My concern is the news item, not the commenter. It is possible to post an item in good faith that turns out not to be true. In any case, the News Tab rules don’t allow linking of your own blog post as the news item. That is why I thought SM Intern should look at it.
True, but I don’t think it is his own blog. I am sure he can clarify himself better.
Chachaji,
See the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan’s blog here, the second article in the link is by Asma Jehagir who talks about Muneer being shifted to attack fort and being tortured. I am sure that news on MSM is being censored, so the HRCP has set up a blog.
I think the tide is turning……the anti-coup movement is spreading from lawyers only to political parties, and perhaps masses too in near future.
Good for Pakistan. I think some good will come out of it.
Chachaji –
The “Free Pakistan” blog I linked to is not mine. I linked to it as a news item that was reported on Geo. I didn’t see it myself, but someone else did indicate to me that it was indeed mentioned on Geo. That certainly could be mistaken. But there are other reports to similar effect:
Obviously, this kind of information may be difficult to confirm, because as I understand it (and this has been reported, by HRCP among others) nobody has been allowed Malik and a number of the other senior lawyers who have been detained. They are consistent with other reports — I have seen a few reports, for example, of judges and lawyers who need essential medication being denied access to that even while under house arrest, much less when they’ve been detained incommunicado in Attock Fort.
But — and this is not really a response to you, because I understand where your comment is coming from — there’s a bigger underlying issue here. The burden isn’t on anyone else to establish that someone who is being unlawfully detained, incommunicado and without charge — by the ISI no less — is not being tortured. That burden rests with the Pakistan government, which (according to our own State Department, among other sources) has quite a track record when it comes to torture. None of these people should be in detention in the first place, in no small part precisely because we are left with absolutely no idea what might be happening to them.
At an absolute minimum, all of these detainees should be given the ability to meet with their family members and lawyers — and under these circumstances, I would say even the ICRC, as well. They also should be charged if the government wants to continue holding them. Unless that happens, I see no reason to give the government of Pakistan any benefit of the doubt regarding what might be happening to any of its detainees.
Anil, thank you for the detailed response.
I am sorry I implied the blog you were referencing was your own – actually all I meant to say was that the comment and the blog post (when it was up) said exactly the same thing, without further details.
When I first read the headline about Muneer Malik, I felt sick to my stomach. I immediately did a google news search for more details, which came up with nothing. I did that again in a few hours, but by this time the original blog post linked in the news tab had vanished. That’s when I wrote my comment on the news tab, which mercifully is also now gone.
brown came up with Asma Jehangir’s blog in his search, probably because google news searches don’t search blogs, but general google searches do search blogs, or he might have done a google blog search. Anyway.
To your point on whose burden it is to prove torture – I would actually argue, not being a lawyer – that being held incommunicado by a secret agency – ISI – is in itself an act of torture.
Anil, Chachaji
I’ve been writing all the Senators and congressmen all day about finding out what happened to those lawyers, including Muneer Malik, who have been illegally detained. I fear for their life because they are the biggest threat to not just Musharraf, but also the army and ISI. I feel the whole American media is not representing the truth behind the emergency. They keep harping on Bhutto but noone mentions Muneer Malik. How did Bhutto hijack this situation, getting all the sympathy when in reality she is allied to Mush? Noone is discussing the fact that the lawyers movement and the judiciary are being crushed and the activists tortured. America needs to stop supporting this dictator immediately! The media need to look past Bhutto.
Abhi,
You are right. But to use your analogy, when seedlings sprout, you shouldn’t allow the bulls to tread all over it. Have you ever seen lawyers believing in something enough to risk their lives for it? I wanted to find out in June how the lawyers became brave enough and organized enough to fight a dictator to reinstate their chief justice. And I came across the lawyers movement and Muneer Malik who wrote some articles in Dawn. I wanted to post this on the news tab but it was not the appropriate place. Read this article by Muneer Malik. We risk alienating the people of pakistan by not supporting them when they need it most. Once again America will be blamed for backing the dictatorship. The least we can do is make sure the activists are not tortured and murdered by letting Musharraf know that we care what happens to them and that he will be made to answer for it.
Thanks a lot for the article, Rasudha.
Sakshi, you’re welcome. Thanks for reading it.
Muneer Malik sounds like a man of great integrity and decency. Pakistan should be proud that after 60 years of instability and corruption, it can still produce such people. It is sad what he is going through: its a really ugly world we live in.
Chachaji – like I said, I understood where your comment was coming from, so there’s no need for any apology. As for your last point about incommunicado detention by the ISI as a form of “torture,” at least in a shorthand sense if not a technical legal one, I completely agree. And regardless of whether it’s torture in some technical sense, it is certainly unlawful. But good luck finding a Pakistani High Court judge among Musharraf’s new “pocket judges” to rule on that now.
Anil, you are extremely gracious. BTW, I had this brief comment on your fine article on the news tab.
I read the article by Muneer Malik posted by rasudha with great interest. There is no question that he is a man of great integrity – and I was also touched by his invocation of people like Tilak and Gandhi, who are slowly being forgotten even in India. Among other things, therefore, I like the subcontinent-wide sweep of his historical (and contemporary) imagination.
But I was concerned that the uncompromising stance he asserts seems a little out of place for a political actor. Politics after all, is the art of the possible. While activist judicaries often constructively break the status quo, they are also an essential part of “the system” themselves, and can’t help upholding it, even if only to help break it by parts. So it is just a matter of degree – how much of each aspect a particular judiciary possesses.
People who have not have followed Pakistani politics as closely as I have – may not know that Muneer Malik has been one of the most visible lawyers in the movement against Musharraf – with a very high public profile. He appeared on Geo TV’s “Great Debate” in late September just before the Presidential Elections of Oct 12 – along with Justice Tariq Mehmood. Against them were Ahmed Raza Kasuri and Sherafghan Niazi, arguing the case for Musharraf. In the colorful terms of the debate – the pro-Musharraf side was called ‘Jiyo Musharraf’ (Jiyo is a play on ‘Geo’) and the anti-side is “Jeene Do Musharraf”. (Jiyo translates roughly as ‘Live Long!’ and Jeene Do as ‘Let us Live!’)
Muneer Malik’s eloquence in the debate is outstanding, remarkable also because he is clearly more comfortable in English than in Urdu but he still makes excellent points. The debate is worth watching, though it requires knowledge of Urdu/Hindustani.
The debate proceeds well enough – until the very end, when Kasuri begins to curse out Muneer Malik, which Geo bleeps out. Yet word gets out on what was said, and in a few days, another lawyer blackens his face with a can of spray paint just as he is entering the Supreme Court.
The incident, which involves lawyers on both sides – shows how great a degree of uncivility was reached in the run up to the most recent events.
What is also of great concern in the context of Muneer Malik’s arrest – is the fact that Kasuri is the man whose ‘FIR’ against Bhutto in his own father’s murder – eventually launched the case that led to Bhutto’s conviction and hanging. In the face blackening case, Kasuri filed another FIR, which named both Justice Mehmood and Muneer Malik. Given that Kasuri is Musharraf’s lawyer, he has a lot of power and influence within the system. He is also has an extremely confrontational style, obvious in the debate and something he acknowledges himself.
Especially given this background, many questions naturally arise, and Pakistan should be much more forthcoming about where and in what manner Muneer Malik and Tariq Mehmood are being held.
We also foolishly believed \\”Curveball\\” aka Rafid Ahmed Alwan http://www.curveballbook.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafid_Ahmed_Alwan and Judith Miller who was closely associated with Chalabi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller_%28journalist%29
With the removal of the dictator and the election of a new government, has the situation really changed for the better in Pakistan? The terror attacks in Mumbai seem to suggest that the Pakistan military will dominate Pakistan for a long time.