Today's Pakistan: Conservative or Progressive?

Pakistan is often portrayed in the international media, particularly the western media, as a highly tradition-bound conservative society dominated by Taliban sympathizers.  Fatima Bhutto, a granddaughter of former Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, offers evidence to suggest otherwise. 

Fatima Bhutto

In  a recent Op Ed published in The Guardian titled "Superheroes, jazz, queer art: how Pakistan’s transgressive pop culture went global", Fatima Bhutto offers recent examples of the Pakistani pop culture going global. In particular, she cites television series Ms. Marvel, feature film Joyland, Grammy winning Urdu singer Arooj Aftab, world-famous qawwali singers Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan and Abida Parveen, celebrated artists Shazia Sikandar and Salman Toor,  and novelists like Mohammad Hanif, the author of "A Case of Exploding Mangoes". 

Fatima talks about the history of the ongoing struggle between the conservatives and the progressives that dates back to the nation's independence in 1947. She also contrasts Pakistan with India: "Though Bollywood films from earlier decades addressed injustice, feudalism and political oppression, today the industry is little more than a mouthpiece for India’s quasi-fascist rightwing government, obsessed with spit-shining the image of its prime minister, Narendra Modi". Below are a some excepts of Fatima Bhutto's Op Ed:

1. "Even though the film (Joyland) was...subject to various bans in Pakistan, after being accused of pushing an LGBTQ+ agenda and misrepresenting Pakistani culture, it finally appeared in Pakistani cinemas in November, with Malala Yousafzai signing on as executive producer".  Note: Joyland was the first Pakistani film to be screened at the prestigious Cannes Film Festival where "it won the Un Certain Regard prize, receiving a standing ovation nearly 10 minutes long".   

2. "Ms Marvel follows Kamala Khan, whose parents, formerly of Karachi and now of New Jersey, are not caricatures of immigrant parents, but droll and charming, embarrassing in the way all parents are while their young daughter suffers the indignities of teenagers everywhere. The writing team knows only too well the codes and ciphers of Pakistani life and have seamlessly blended them into this Disney tale. Kamala has a brother who prays constantly (every Pakistani family has one resident fundamentalist), her father quotes poetry at the dinner table and Nakia, her hijab-wearing best friend, has her shoes stolen at the mosque – a timeless rite of passage for all mosque-going Muslims". 

3. "In the past few months, the contemporary Pakistani artists Shahzia Sikander and Salman Toor have been glowingly profiled in the New Yorker; Toor’s Four Friends recently sold at a Sotheby’s auction for $1.2m (£0.99m). His paintings are celebrated for their depictions of queer intimacy, and reimaginings of classical masterpieces from Caravaggio to Édouard Manet. “My immediate reaction was that this artist could paint anything and make me believe in it,” wrote the New Yorker’s Calvin Tomkins".

4. "Pakistanis have always understood their heritage to be culturally rich and transgressive: from the romance of the Urdu language, spoken by poets and in royal courts, to qawwali singers as diverse as Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan and Abida Parveen, to television dramas and literature. Artists such as Iqbal Bano sang songs against dictators and shows on state television satirized military juntas with jokes so sophisticated that even army censors couldn’t catch them. In 1969, Pakistan state television aired Khuda Ki Basti, or God’s Own Land, a series set in a Karachi slum in the tumultuous days after independence, from a classic Urdu novel. To ensure that the drama was faithful to the novel, Pakistan state television convened a board of intellectuals to oversee the scripts, including Faiz Ahmed Faiz, one of the country’s most beloved poets". 

5. “We’ve been having a really hard time in a post-9/11 world,” says the Brooklyn-based Arooj Aftab, the first Pakistani musician to win a Grammy, taking home the 2022 award for best global music performance. Aftab’s album Vulture Prince reimagines traditional ghazals, melancholic love poems born out of Arabic and Persian literary traditions. “There’s been a significant amount of Islamophobia and a lot of bad marketing towards Pakistan in general – associations with terrorism and pain and Afghanistan-adjacent confusion – while the narrative around a lot of other south Asian countries is like ‘Oh my God! Beauty! Exotic landscapes! Yoga!’ And the west loves that shit.”

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

South Asia Investor Review

Pakistani-American Gay Physicist Nergis Mavalvala

Emmy Winning British Pakistani Riz Ahmed

History of South Asians in America

HBO Comedy "Silicon Valley" Stars Pakistani-American

Pakistanis Make Up Largest Foreign-Born Muslim Group in Silicon Valley

Karachi to Hollywood: Triple Oscar Winning Pakistani-American

Burka Avenger: Pakistani Female Superhero 

Pakistani-American Grammy Winning Urdu Singer Arooj Aftab

Pakistani-American Leads NYC Gay Parade

Pakistani-American Shahid Khan Richest South Asian in America

Ms. Marvel: Pakistani-American Girl Superhero

Pakistani-American Author-Journalist Raza Rumi in Silicon Valley

Minorities Are Majority in Silicon Valley 

Pakistani-American Population Growth Second Fastest Among Asian-Americans

The Big Sick

Pakistani-American Diaspora Thriving in America

British Pakistani Singer Zayn Malik

Pakistan FM Bilawal Bhutto Zardari Lashes Out At Indian EAM Subramanyam Jaishankar

“If the FM (foreign minister) of India (Jaishankar) was being honest, then he knows as well as I, that the RSS (India's militant Hindu organization) does not believe in Gandhi, in his ideology. They do not see this individual as the founder of India, they hero-worship the terrorist that assassinated Gandhi", said Pakistan's Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari at a press conference at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City. "Osama Bin Laden is dead but the butcher of Gujarat lives and he is the prime minister of India", he added. Mr. Bhutto Zardari was responding to a question from the media asked at the behest of the Indian Foreign Minister Subramanyam Jaishankar.  Earlier at the UNSC, Indian External Affairs Minister Subramanyam Jaishankar had unveiled a statue of Mohandas K. Gandhi at the UN and accused Pakistan of "hosting Osama Bin Laden". Gandhi was assassinated by Nathuram Godse, a member of the militant Hindu organization RSS. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a member of the RSS. 

Pakistan Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari at the United Nations Headquarters in New York

Here are some excerpts of what Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said at the media briefing at the UN:  

“He [Narendra Modi] was banned from entering this country [the United States]....these are the prime minister and foreign minister of the RSS (India's right-wing Hindu nationalist organization)....The RSS draws its inspiration from Hitler’s SS (the German Nazi Party’s militant wing Schutzstaffel)...(According to the RSS) we (Muslims) are terrorists whether we are Muslims in Pakistan and we’re terrorists whether we’re Muslims in India.....They (Modi and BJP) are not even attempting to wash the blood of the people of Gujarat off their hand..."Butcher of Gujarat” was now the “Butcher of Kashmir”". 

Last month,  the US State Department bracketed Indian Prime Minister Modi with murderous dictators like Congo's Laurent Kabila and Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe. Speaking about the US decision to grant immunity to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman, State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel said that it was “not the first time” that the US government has designated immunity to foreign leaders and listed four cases. “Some examples: President Aristide in Haiti in 1993; President Mugabe in Zimbabwe in 2001; Prime Minister Modi in India in 2014; and President Kabila in the DRC in 2018. This is a consistent practice that we have afforded to heads of state, heads of government, and foreign ministers,” he said. 

BJP HIndutva Leaders Modi, Yogi and Shah

Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India was barred from entering the United States from 2005 to 2014 for his involvement in the massacre of thousands of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002.  In 2015, a US judge dismissed a lawsuit against Modi after the US government argued that he is immune to accusations as a sitting head of government. While Modi has denied any involvement in the Gujarat anti-Muslim pogrom, he has never even expressed any regret over the killings in Gujarat when he was the Chief Minister of the Indian state. 

While Modi has refused to accept any responsibility for the massacre of over 2,000 Muslims in Gujarat in 2002, his party BJP's leaders have not shied away from claiming "credit" for it. Just yesterday, Modi's right-hand man and current Home Minister Amit Shah said Muslims were "taught a lesson" in 2002. He said that "after they were taught a lesson in 2002, these elements left that path (of violence). They refrained from indulging in violence from 2002 till 2022. BJP has established permanent peace in Gujarat by taking strict action against those who used to indulge in communal violence". 

In 2002 when Narendra Modi was chief minister of the Indian state of Gujarat, hundreds of young Muslim girls were sexually assaulted, tortured and killed.  These rapes were condoned by the ruling BJP, whose refusal to intervene lead to the rape and killing of thousands and displacement of 200,000 Muslims.

In 2012, a former Chief Minister of Gujarat Mr. Shankersinh Vaghela accused Modi's state government of having blood on its hand: "2002 me jo katl-e-aam hua uspe wo sarkar bani hai. Iske baad encounter hui, uske upar ye sarkar bani thi. Sarkar banti hai, lekin ye jo conspiracy karke sarkar banana hai, ye Gujarat aur desh ki janata jaanti hai aur aaj wo repeat nah o, iske liye hum janata ko request karte hain (The foundation of this (Modi) government rests on the 2002 carnage. Governments are made, but not on conspiracies. And the people of Gujarat know this, and that's why we are requesting the people for a change)," Mr Vaghela said.

Since his election to India's top elected office, Modi has elevated fellow right-wing Hindu extremists to positions of power in India. Yogi Adiyanath, known for his highly inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric, was hand-picked in 2016 by Modi to head India's most populous state of Uttar Pradesh.

Adiyanath's supporters brag about digging up Muslim women from their graves and raping them. In a video uploaded in 2014,  he said, “If [Muslims] take one Hindu girl, we’ll take 100 Muslim girls. If they kill one Hindu, we’ll kill 100 Muslims.”

Yogi wants to "install statues of Goddess Gauri, Ganesh and Nandi in every mosque”.  Before his election, he said, “If one Hindu is killed, we won’t go to the police, we’ll kill 10 Muslims”.  He endorsed the beef lynching of Indian Muslim Mohammad Akhlaque and demanded that the victim's family be charged with cow slaughter.

Madhav S. Golwalkar, considered among the founders of the Hindu Nationalist movement in India, saw Islam and Muslims as enemies. He said: “Ever since that evil day, when Moslems first landed in Hindusthan, right up to the present moment, the Hindu Nation has been gallantly fighting to shake off the despoilers".

In his book We, MS Golwalkar wrote the following in praise of what Nazi leader Adolf Hitler did to Jews as a model for what Hindus should do to Muslims in India: "To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races -- the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by."

Paul Richard Brass, professor emeritus of political science and international relations at the Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington, has spent many years researching communal riots in India. He has debunked all the action-reaction theories promoted by Hindu Nationalists like Modi. He believes these are not spontaneous but planned and staged as "a grisly form of dramatic production" by well-known perpetrators from the Sangh Parivar of which Prime Minister Modi has been a member since his youth.

Here's an excerpt of Professor Brass's work:

"Events labelled “Hindu-Muslim riots” have been recurring features in India for three-quarters of a century or more. In northern and western India, especially, there are numerous cities and town in which riots have become endemic. In such places, riots have, in effect, become a grisly form of dramatic production in which there are three phases: preparation/rehearsal, activation/enactment, and explanation/interpretation. In these sites of endemic riot production, preparation and rehearsal are continuous activities. Activation or enactment of a large-scale riot takes place under particular circumstances, most notably in a context of intense political mobilization or electoral competition in which riots are precipitated as a device to consolidate the support of ethnic, religious, or other culturally marked groups by emphasizing the need for solidarity in face of the rival communal group. The third phase follows after the violence in a broader struggle to control the explanation or interpretation of the causes of the violence. In this phase, many other elements in society become involved, including journalists, politicians, social scientists, and public opinion generally. At first, multiple narratives vie for primacy in controlling the explanation of violence. On the one hand, the predominant social forces attempt to insert an explanatory narrative into the prevailing discourse of order, while others seek to establish a new consensual hegemony that upsets existing power relations, that is, those which accept the violence as spontaneous, religious, mass-based, unpredictable, and impossible to prevent or control fully. This third phase is also marked by a process of blame displacement in which social scientists themselves become implicated, a process that fails to isolate effectively those most responsible for the production of violence, and instead diffuses blame widely, blurring responsibility, and thereby contributing to the perpetuation of violent productions in future, as well as the order that sustains them."

"In India, all this takes place within a discourse of Hindu-Muslim hostility that denies the deliberate and purposive character of the violence by attributing it to the spontaneous reactions of ordinary Hindus and Muslims, locked in a web of mutual antagonisms said to have a long history. In the meantime, in post-Independence India, what are labelled Hindu-Muslim riots have more often than not been turned into pogroms and massacres of Muslims, in which few Hindus are killed. In fact, in sites of endemic rioting, there exist what I have called “institutionalized riot systems,” in which the organizations of militant Hindu nationalism are deeply implicated. Further, in these sites, persons can be identified, who play specific roles in the preparation, enactment, and explanation of riots after the fact. Especially important are what I call the “fire tenders,” who keep Hindu-Muslim tensions alive through various inflammatory and inciting acts; “conversion specialists,” who lead and address mobs of potential rioters and give a signal to indicate if and when violence should commence; criminals and the poorest elements in society, recruited and rewarded for enacting the violence; and politicians and the vernacular media who, during the violence, and in its aftermath, draw attention away from the perpetrators of the violence by attributing it to the actions."

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

South Asia Investor Review

Muslims Worse Off Than Dalits in India

Disintegration of India

Dalit Death Shines Light on India's Caste Apartheid

Caste Discrimination Rampant Among Silicon Valley Indians

Rape: A Political Weapon in Modi's India

Hindutva: The Legacy of the British Rulers "Divide and Rule" Project

Will Modi's Hindutva Lead to Multiple Partitions of India?

Riaz Haq Youtube Channel

PakAlumni: Pakistani Social Network

Asif Zardari: A Corrupt Master Manipulator?

The recent shock defeat of  Dr. Hafeez Shaikh, Prime Minister Imran Khan's nominee for the Senate, has former President Asif Ali Zardari's fingerprints on it. The former president and current co-chairman of the Pakistan Peoples Party orchestrated the buying of votes and arranged the hundreds of millions of rupees used for the purpose to ensure former Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani's surprise victory in the recent Senate Elections. Zardari has been widely known to be "in his elements" when it comes to "money transactions". 

L to R: Khurshid Shah, Asif Ali Zaradri, Yusuf Raza Gilani

What Mr. Zardari pulled off is a reminder of what he did for Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, his late wife who faced almost certain defeat in a no-confidence motion against her in November, 1989. In his recent book entitled "The Bhutto Dynasty", veteran British journalist Owen Bennet Jones offers several specific instances of how the Bhuttos used money for political gain. One such instance was when Benazir Bhutto's husband Asif Ali Zardari helped her defeat a no-confidence motion in 1989 that appeared to be all but certain to remove her from power. Here are the relevant excerpts of the book:

"Having seen politics close up when her father was in power, Benazir had long been aware that money played a part in Pakistani politics. But now it could not have been clearer: if one of her National Assembly members was being offered a bribe to switch to the opposition, she needed to be able to match it............As another of her political advisers later recalled, ‘Asif’s role became more prominent when she beat back the motion of no confidence. There was some wheeler dealing in that. Some buying of votes. The moment money transactions came into play, Asif was in his element.’ Asif Zardari has consistently denied any financial malpractice. During her second government, Benazir told an aide that you needed to have $200–300 million to go into an election so that you could fund your candidates and secure their loyalty. While many of her advisers gave her plenty of interesting suggestions about what to do, Zardari actually did things, proving himself to be a man she could rely on" 

Forms of Corruption and Impact. Source: Dr. Yuen Yuen Ang

Owen Bennet Jones has described in some detail how Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his daughter Benazir Bhutto saw the role of money in Pakistani politics. Here's an excerpt of Benazir's candid admission that "kickbacks must be taken":

"In a surprisingly unguarded interview with the American Academy of Achievement in 2000 she (Benazir Bhutto) said, while denying personal involvement, that she wished she had done more to tackle corruption: ‘We all knew kickbacks must be taken . . . these things happen.’Politicians everywhere, she argued, made money. The difference was that while Western politicians did so after they left office, their counterparts in the developing world did not have that option".

Owen Bennet Jones has reported another instance in which Zulfikar Ali Bhutto gave away bundles of cash to a religious leader who was the last hold-out against the adoption of the 1973 constitution. Here is the excerpt:

"It was, by any standards, extraordinary that Zulfikar managed to push it through with no one in the National Assembly voting against it. Mubashir Hassan described how the final hold-out – a cleric – was persuaded to vote in favour with a payoff: ‘The amount was settled and Bhutto described the scene to me how when the fellow came to President’s House to collect the money, Bhutto threw a packet of notes on the floor and ordered him to pick it up. There the man was, moving over the carpet on all fours, picking a bundle from here and a bundle from there. Bhutto was mightily amused. By using all his political skills – bribery included – Zulfikar had made a significant contribution to Pakistan’s national story." 

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

South Asia Investor Review

Political Patronage in Pakistan

Zardari Corruption

Panama Papers

US Aid to Pakistan

1971 Debacle in East Pakistan

Is it 1971 Moment in Pakistan's History?

Mission RAW by RK Yadav: India in East Pakistan

Benazir Bhutto Gave Birth to Taliban

What if Musharraf Had Said No to US After 911?

Riaz Haq Youtube Channel

VPOS Youtube Channel

History of Top Leadership Blunders in Pakistan Part 1

What are the key sources of the current crises faced by Pakistan? Can any of these be traced to blunders committed years ago by Pakistani leaders?

Pakistan's Gen AK Niazi Signing Surrender in East Pakistan

Was it a blunder for Pakistan's founders to align with the United States early on? What was the alternative for a nascent cash-strapped state that faced imminent economic collapse? Who other than the United States had the deep pockets to help Pakistan in 1947 when the Soviet Union, Europe and Japan lay in ruins at the end of WW II? Would the construction of big dams and irrigation system in Pakistan have happened without the US help? Would the Green Revolution have come about if the US did not help?

US Aid in 66 Years

Was the passage of the Objectives Resolution in 1949 among the blunders of Pakistan's early leaders? Did it distract from framing an inclusive and unifying constitution of the nation-state? Did it promote religious discrimination and extremism in the country? Was the 2nd amendment to the 1973 Constitution declaring Ahmedis non-Muslims a logical consequence of it?

Did the failures of Pakistan's political class open the doors for military coups starting with the 1958 coup led by General Mohammad Ayub Khan? How did the military coups led by General Yahya Khan, General Zia ul Haq and General Pervez Musharraf impact Pakistan? Could these coups have been avoided?

What led to the loss of Pakistan's eastern wing and the creation of Bangladesh in 1971? Was it a political failure or a military failure? Was it orchestrated by India with the help of Shaikh Mujib ur Rehman starting with Agartala Conspiracy in 1960s? Was it a blunder for Gen Zia to join the United States and Saudi Arabia in support of the Afghan Jihad against the Soviet Union in 1980s? Did it promote militarization of religious fanatics in Pakistan? Was it a mistake for Benazir Bhutto to give birth to the Taliban?

Did Musharraf blunder by siding with the United States after Sept 11, 2001 terror attacks in America? What was the alternative? Would the porous Afghan-Pakistan border allow Pakistan to be a silent observer?

Azad Labon Ke Sath host Faraz Darvesh discusses these questions with panelists Misbah Azam and Riaz Haq (www.riazhaq.com)

https://youtu.be/EbIf11W89JI




Related Links:

Haq's Musings

South Asia Investor Review

US Aid to Pakistan

1971 Debacle in East Pakistan

Is it 1971 Moment in Pakistan's History?

Mission RAW by RK Yadav: India in East Pakistan

Benazir Bhutto Gave Birth to Taliban

What if Musharraf Had Said No to US After 911?

Riaz Haq Youtube Channel

VPOS Youtube Channel

Iran-Pakistan Ties: Friends or Foes?

It is commonly accepted that Iran and Pakistan remained the best of friends until the fall of the Shah. Beginning in 1979, the relations between the two neighbors worsened with Imam Khomeni's Islamic Revolution in Iran and General Zia ul Haq's Islamization in Pakistan.

Opposition to Pakistan's Nuclear Program: 

In a book titled "Iran and Pakistan: Security, Diplomacy and American Influence", the Iranian-born American author Alex Vatanka challenges the notion that the rise of sectarianism strained Iran-Pakistan ties.  He argues that the relations began to deteriorate earlier in the decade of 1970s when Shah Mohammad Reza Shah Pehlavi, acting on behalf of the United States, tried to pressure Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to abandon Pakistan's nascent nuclear program.

History of Iran-Pakistan Ties:

Iran was the first country to recognized Pakistan right after the country's independence in 1947. Unlike Afghanistan that opposed Pakistan's admission to the United Nations, Iran enthusiastically supported it.  Iran also helped mediate running disputes between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The relations between the two neighbors grew even closer as both joined the 1955 Baghdad Pact for common defense that was signed by Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey and the United Kingdom. It was renamed CENTO (Central Asia Treaty Organization) after the 1958 coup in Iraq that deposed the pro-West King Faisal of Iraq. Later, a regional cooperation for development (RCD) agreement was signed that included Iran, Pakistan and Turkey, all US allies at the time in 1970s.


1971 Loss of East Pakistan:

Pakistan's loss to India in 1971 East Pakistan war caused both the Shah and Bhutto to reassess bilateral ties.  The Shah felt Pakistan had been permanently weakened by the 1971 war with India. It encouraged the Shah's ambition of becoming the regional hegemon in West Asia and the Gulf region.

While the Shah saw an opportunity to assert Iranian leadership after the events of 1971,  Zulfikar Ali Bhutto sought to rebuild Pakistan's strength and to reclaim its status as a powerful nation in the region. Part of Bhutto's plan included building an atom bomb, an effort that was vehemently opposed by the United States. The Shah echoed the American demands in private meetings with Pakistani leadership.

Pakistan's Ties with Gulf Arabs:

Faced with the American and Iranian opposition to Pakistan's nuclear program after 1971, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a secular leader married to a Shia woman of Iranian ancestry, sought closer ties with Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Sunni Gulf nations of the GCC. Here's an excerpt of Alex Vatanka's response in an interview with Lawfare journal:

"The fact that he (Zulfikar Ali Bhutto) was Shia had nothing to do with it. Bhutto is focused about India: Who can come to my aid, who can foot the bill for my nuclear program that I need to build up because I know that India is just about to get their hands on a nuclear weapon and I cannot lose that military competition on that front? There is no mention from the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Qataris—all of these famously Sunni nations—oh, we don't like Bhutto because he's Shia, you know? There's no sign of that. This sectarianism is something that unfortunately becomes much bigger of a player in the foreign relations of everybody in the last 15, 20 years because of a lot of other factors."

Complicated Iran-Pakistan Ties:

The relations between Iran and Pakistan oscillate between claims of "brotherly" ties and border skirmishes along Balochistan-Sistan border.

As recently as this week, Iranian President Rouhani said in a meeting with Pakistan Senate President Raza Rabbani that "the Islamic Republic regards Pakistan’s security as extension of its own".

In the last decade, Pakistan’s ties with Gulf Arabs have been uneasy while its relationship with Iran hit an all-time low with regular border skirmishes.

Regular diplomatic exchanges and friendly statements between Iran and Pakistan continue to attempt to reduce tensions while glossing over real difficulties between the military and intelligence services of the two countries.

Summary:

All's not well between Iran and Pakistan. The bilateral relations began to deteriorate in early 1970s when the Shah and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto were still in charge, well before the Iranian Islamic Revolution and Zia ul Haq's Islamization in Pakistan. Iranian-American scholar Alex Vatanka says the key issue at the time was the US-Iran joint opposition to Pakistan's nuclear program that forced Bhutto to turn to Gulf Arabs for help. The difficulties are not rooted in sectarian Shia-Sunni difference. There is a genuine desire and continuing efforts by diplomats on both sides to maintain a good working relationship.

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

Iran-Saudi Conflict

Pakistan's Nuclear Program

Iran Nuclear Deal

1971 India-Pakistan War

Chabahar vs Gwadar Ports

Did America Contribute to the Rise of ISIS?

Pakistan Election Rigging 101

Rigging Allegations
The allegations of poll rigging are getting louder as Pakistan approaches the Feb 18, 2008 parliamentary elections. When you hear the opposition politicians, particularly from PPP and PML-N, describe the details of alleged rigging in Pakistani and world media, it seems that they have a great deal of personal knowledge and expertise in
this specialty, the kind of depth that can only come from having engaged in it for themselves. I am writing this blog post to try and explain the crux of the issue as I understand it.

ISI Political Cell
As I read through a lot of material in my quest for the answers, what caught my eye was a PPP report alleging that "Military Intelligence sits in the offices of returning officers, police officials and other elections officials." The question is: What does the military intelligence have to do with organizing elections? To find the answer, I had to go as far back as 1975 when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto ruled the country with an iron hand under emergency rules. Talking about ISI's role in Pakistani elections, former ISI chief Gen. Hamid Gul recently said in an interview to Tehelka.com, " The ISI has played an important role and it has in its charter — through a prime ministerial decree signed by Zulfiqar Bhutto — a political cell, so the politicians are at fault and the Army chief and his coterie of generals are at fault."

Bhutto Legacy
It was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who issued the executive order creating a political cell within the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) with the purpose of influencing political processes in Pakistan. This fateful decision eventually brought ZA Bhutto's own downfall when he used this cell to unnecessarily rig the 1977 elections and was overthrown and executed by General Zia-ul-Haq. It was also this cell that helped Nawaz Sharif , a protege of General Zia-ul-Haq, get elected as Prime Minister of Pakistan after the General's death in a mysterious air crash followed by a brief term in office by Benazir Bhutto. In 1990 the ISI received 140m rupees (US$2.2m at current values) to rig national elections, according to supreme court testimony by the then chief of army staff, General Mirza Aslam Beg.
Described aptly as "Bhutto Legacy" by Pakistani newspaper Dawn's columnist Mr. Aredeshir Cowasjee, this political cell in the ISI continues to exist and it is still being used by the pro-government politicians to influence the outcome of the elections. Recently, Chaudhry Shujaat Husain of PML-Q, argued that this cell should continue working. Obviously, the opposition politicians want it disbanded, as long as they can not use it to their advantage.

Specific Allegations
In terms of the specific allegations such as ghost polling stations, ballot stuffing, counting irregularities, etc, each of these are rebutted effectively by Staffan Darnolf, Pakistan country director of IFES with lots of experience in elections in developing nations. Responding to a blog post by Barnett Ruben, Staffan wrote: "In this article you mentioned that the elections are likely to be rigged with the assistance of ISI and district administration as “[t]hese ballots, already printed, filled out, and prepared, are then added to those transported from polling places for the final count.” Could you elaborate a bit more here, as I simply don’t understand your argument. The reason being that no central counting of ballot papers take place. The ballot boxes are opened at the polling stations and the ballot papers are counted at the individual polling stations.
On ghost polling stations, Staffan says: "What my argument boils down to is that this notion of ghost polling stations is a red herring. Why go through this huge exercise involving thousands of people to try to siphon off ballot papers, get your hands on ballot boxes, security seals, the right stamps, the original forms, prep the ballot papers and then have them sent to the Returning Officers' premises where no counting of the ballots are taking place? Also, how do you produce faked voters list for these ghost polling stations now when the voters lists are computerized and can be easily verified?"
Staffan goes on: "To me, this seems as far-fetched as the allegation by some political parties in late November and the first week of December stating that 108 Punjab NA constituencies had been selected for rigging, as the ruling party's representatives had already received 20-30K (the reported number varied) extra ballot papers for stuffing. The problem with this accusation is that candidate nomination only ended on Dec 15. And before that no one knows which parties and candidates will actually run for office. Hence, it is only on December 16th that the final design of the real ballots are known and they can be produced for any of the 849 directly elected constituencies."
While specific allegations are rebutted well, just the existence of the ISI cell creates doubt as to the fairness of the polls in Pakistan.

Disband ISI Cell
Given the acknowledged existence of this political cell within ISI, can we expect any confidence in the results of the upcoming elections? The answer is clearly NO. Would such a cell give the losers the justification to launch mass protests, even if the elections are largely free and fair? The answer is clearly YES. I think it would be in the best interest of the nation if all politicians and generals agree to disband this ISI cell to make sure the elections are, in fact, free and fair and seen to be completely free, fair and transparent.

Can Pakistan's Economy Defy the Odds?

While many analysts, CEOs, and investors remain bullish on Pakistan's economy, here's a contrarian view by Lee Hudson Teslik on the dangers ahead for Pakistan:

Pakistan has become a land of what-ifs. Analysts speculate on a wide range of fallout scenarios for the country: suppose President Pervez Musharraf’s regime falls; or Musharraf’s crackdowns disillusion moderate Pakistanis and embolden Islamist extremists; or the country’s nuclear weapons aren’t as secure as official assurances suggest. On the economic front, there’s no need for guesswork—Pakistan’s turmoil has already pinched the country’s economy, stoking inflation and prompting concerns among regional trading partners.

Voice of America (VOA), the U.S.-funded broadcast network, reports on a worsening of endemic economic problems in the country following the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto in late December. Pakistan’s central bank lowered its growth forecasts (Reuters) for 2007/2008 in early January, but VOA reports that inflation and power shortages pose a more concrete problem in the near term. Bloomberg reports that Pakistan’s inflation spiked in late 2007, ending the year at roughly 8.8 percent. More pressingly for much of the country’s population, the prices of beverages and food items, including basic foodstuffs like wheat products, rose at an even higher rate.

The country’s political turmoil also threatens foreign direct investment, a critical indicator in developing regions. “This is the worst possible scenario for foreign investment,” one emerging markets analyst told Reuters. “This environment of chaos is perfect for Islamic militants.” Less than 10 percent of Karachi’s stock market, which controls more than $70 billion, is owned by non-Pakistanis—yet the Reuters article notes that this number has increased rapidly in recent years. Analysts had hoped Pakistan’s economy might parrot the growth rates seen in neighboring India. As yet, that hasn’t happened. India handily eclipses Pakistan in gross domestic product and other critical economic measures.

Pakistan’s turmoil comes at a particularly bad time in terms of Indo-Pakistani economic relations. Trade between the countries expanded significantly following a 2004 South Asia Free Trade Agreement. The Economic Times, an Indian newspaper, reports that trade between the countries has more than quadrupled since 2001. Yet the space for additional growth remains vast. A 2006 working paper from the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, an Indian think tank, estimates that two-way trade between India and Pakistan could reasonably multiply tenfold. In an interview with CFR.org, Sumit Ganguly, a South Asia expert, says trade relations between India and Pakistan remain hostage to diplomatic ties.

In the short term, Pakistan’s economic concerns will almost certainly affect the upcoming parliamentary elections, which were delayed from January 8 to February 18 following Bhutto’s death. Agence France-Presse says that basic needs like food carry more political weight for many Pakistanis than headline issues like nuclear security and al-Qaeda. CFR’s Daniel Markey adds in a recent Policy Options Paper that these concerns, which affect basic Pakistani stability, should not be overlooked as the United States seeks to encourage Pakistan to counter Islamic extremism within its borders. The political priorities of Pakistanis are explained more extensively in recent polling data from the International Republican Institute, a research institute founded by Congress and run by prominent Republicans. One question asks Pakistanis what issue they are most likely to vote on in elections. Fifty-three percent say inflation. The second- and third-highest responses are unemployment and poverty, at 15 percent and 9 percent, respectively. Only 6 percent of Pakistanis say they are likely to vote on the issue of terrorism.

Source: Council on Foreign Relations, Jan 2008

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari in Devil Costume at a Halloween Party in Oxford

“We’re ready to bring hell on earth. . . waaahahahahahah.”

Here is a picture of Bilawal Bhutto Zardari (Facebook alias: Bilawal Lawalib) posing with a friend published by the UK tabloid The Sun. The Sun obtained it from Facebook. This picture reinforces the fact that Bilwawl is just a kid, enjoying life as college kids do in the West. Poor Bilawal. He's been pushed into this limelight by his father at such a young age. I just hope it does not invite the attention of the unsavory elements in society.

Grandchildren of Z.A. Bhutto & Zia-ul-Haq Speak Out

Omar-ul-Haq, grandson of Zia-ul-Haq and Fatima Bhutto, granddaughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto have both written for the op-ed pages of The News, a widely read newspaper in Pakistan. Both of these young people appear to be quite interested, intelligent and articulate, and quite pessimistic about the future of democracy in Pakistan. I can understand their lack of idealism, given the fact that 50% of Pakistan's children are not in schools, but it is a sad state of affairs when the next generation seems ready to throw in the towel. Let's hope the two are not representative of the mainstream of our next generation. Following are the excerpts from their pieces:

Writing for Sunday, Dec 9 issue of the News in Pakistan, Gen Zia's grandson Omar-ul-Haq says:
"I confess that I am torn between the merits of military and democratic
regimes. While I've never been one to stand on the streets and protest
for leaders who are apparently going to save our country, I'm
definitely not in favour of seeing President Musharaff rule our nation
for much longer either. I have also given a lot of thought to
democracy in Pakistan and while it is the ideal solution, I'm still
not sure if I can see an effective democratic government in Pakistan;
a relatively new and developing nation. While I am not necessarily in
favour of a military regime, the question I pose is whether Pakistan
is ready for yet another democratic government or are we Pakistanis
just simply imagining and hoping for the next democratically elected
political figure to come and perform miracles for our nation? As
tragic as it is, most Pakistanis, including the educated elite, are
unaware of the definition of "democracy". Although we understand the
basics -- that officials must be elected by citizens and must gain the
support of the majority of the population -- do we exactly understand
how these officials get the majority of votes? Do the masses even
consider what the past leaders have given them (or should I say have
not given them) before running out on the streets and risking their
lives for them?"

Murtaza Bhutto's daughter Fatima Bhutto writes in the same issue for the News as follows:
"The Sharifs struck a separate deal with El Presidente, so there goes
the PML (the Daughter of the West might also want to explain to her
chums the Sharif brothers why their election papers were rejected on
the grounds that they had been convicted in courts of law, while hers
were accepted-- even though she was convicted by Swiss courts in the
Cotecna corruption case.) The MMA is pretty cosy with the government.
The JUI has survived this whole spell of 'emergency' rule quite well,
they may not have a working deal with the army, but they certainly
have an understanding. So who is opposition exactly? The MQM is allied
with El Presidente. Imran Khan was, and then he wasn't. Then he hated
Nawaz, now he doesn't. Then he called Benazir a crook, now he's told
the Lahore Bar Association that he's super willing to help her drop
her myriad corruption cases if only she'll be a sport and join his
boycott. So, yes, the opposition-- or rather those commonly accepted
as the opposition-- are a morally bankrupt lot of puppeticians. They
go which ever way leads them to power; they're not opposite to
anything-- except ethics and principles. They're not even anti El
Presidente. They're enablers, the lot of them."

Is 90% Good Enough?

In response my earlier post on the role of Justice Chaudry and Pakistani Judiciary, I got an interesting comment from Khalid A in London, UK. I'd like to share it with you as follows:

"I wrote the following, as early as March 2007
Knowing When to Stop ( Dawn 27.3.07 & Frontier Post 25.3.07)
I often wonder why our nation manages to extract defeat from the jaws
of victory. I am not talking of cricket.
I was able to identify at least 3 important historical moments when
history of Pakistan would have changed, had we known when to stop, and
bank our profits.

1. In 1969, an agitation for restoration of democracy was launched by
Air Marshal Asghar Khan and others against the Ayub regime. It was no
mean achievement that the all powerful military government was really
shaken. Ayub Khan offered to hold elections within 6 months and to
hand over power to the elected leaders. But Air Marshal Asghar Khan
was thumping the table and demanded immediate hand over of power.
There was no elected civilian leader who could have taken over
immediately. The only person who could take over was Gen Yahya Khan,
and he did. Air Marshal Asghar Khan and his colleagues did not know
when to stop. Having achieved 90 percent of their goals, they tried
for 100 percent and lost everything.
2. In 1977, the combined opposition launched a campaign against Mr
Bhutto. It was no mean achievement that the all powerful Bhutto was
ready to meet 90 percent of the demands of his opponents. But they
wanted 100 percent – Bhutto must go immediately! Bhutto did go, but it
was Zia who took over. Our politicians in the opposition did not know
when to stop!
3. In 1997, Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah had the Prime Minister Nawaz
Sharif in the dock. It was no mean achievement for a judge in a third
world country to be able to summon the Prime Minister. Even in the
West, such a situation would be quite remarkable. The Chief Justice
had achieved 90 percent of the goals and could have accepted an
apology. But he wanted a hundred percent victory. The rest is history.
Alas he did not know when to stop!

Today we have another watershed moment in our history. Will the
agitators know when to stop? Will they accept 90 percent victory or
must they lose everything to achieve 100 per cent? The smell of
victory is quite intoxicating and it blurs one's judgement. Will they
extract defeat from the jaws of victory? Will the nation face a coup
a-la-GHQ?"

I also wrote more recently:

What Supreme Court could have done. (Frontier Post 17 nov 2007)

I wrote on the subject in March 2007, under the title "Knowing When to
Stop" ( Frontier Post 27th March 2007). It is very tempting for me to
say " I told you!", but the events are too traumatic for me to do
that.

I said then that our nation always extracts defeat from the jaws of
victory, because we do not learn when to stop. This happened in 1969,
1977 and 1997. Having achieved 90 per cent of our goals, we do not
stop and consolidate our position. We go on fighting to achieve total
humiliation of the opponent. Instead of a 100 per cent victory, we end
up with total defeat.

This time, the Supreme Court had asserted itself and would have had a
major role to play in our national affairs, in future years, had the
Court avoided the path of confrontation. This should have been
done,not under any pressure, but in the supreme national interest. The
Court could have declared that the President's election would be
valid, but with the following conditions:
1. Gen Musharraf will give up the Army uniform BEFORE he takes the new
oath as President. In this way Gen Musharraf will be a civilian when
he takes the oath.
2. Gen Kiyani will be sworn in as Army Chief, in the same ceremony,
immediately after the Presidential oath.
3. Gen Musharraf must seek a new vote of confidence from the next
assemblies, within a specified time. If the vote of confidence is not
granted, the office of the President will become vacant.

Alas, it was not to be!

Khalid A
London UK



This comment reminded of the lyrics of a Kenny Rogers song:

"You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run
You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done"