War and politics

Shafqat Mahmood




Their claim of fighting for Islam was always a sham. That they are barbarous animals has been exposed by the bombing of innocent people in Peshawar. This is not the first time and it will not be the last. They will stop at nothing to get what they really want; power to lord it over you, and tell you how to live your life.




Is this slaughter of poor men, women and children happening because they hate the United States? Were they cutting throats and whipping women in Swat because of the drone attacks? Are these the kind of people who can be talked to, as Imran Khan, Rustam Shah Mohmand and others would have us believe?




They tell us that we the people of Pakistan are being targeted because our governments, past and present, collaborated with the US in fighting the Al Qaeda and Taliban. Let us for a moment accept their logic. How will they explain that these groups had already created cadres, prepared suicide squads, armed themselves and were ready to take on the Pakistani state?




Did this occur because of US-Pakistan partnership after 9/11 or was this happening anyway? The Sufi Mohammads of this world were on the warpath much before September 2001 as were the Punjab-based radical sectarian outfits. Their power and organisation was growing and they were all prepared to assert themselves whether or not the US-Pakistan collaboration took place.




The American presence in Afghanistan has of course added to the problem. After it was occupied, Al Qaeda and other radical groups shifted to Pakistani border regions, adding their money, leadership and skills to the growing strength of local groups. Drone attacks and the overbearing American attitude did not help either. But to say that the terrorism we face today is only because of Pakistan-US collaboration is delusional.




The US could indeed help us to fight this home-grown insurgency better by making its attitude towards Pakistan clearer. It is not just a question of giving us money and arms, although given the state of our economy and the militancy challenge it is not something to sneer at. It could go further by giving greater respect to our sovereignty and not appear to assist our adversaries.




Unwelcome drone attacks are just one aspect of it. The growing footprint of US advisors and security personnel on the ground in Islamabad and other parts of the country is disturbing for the Pakistani people. Some of them have even been caught roaming the capital with arms and others allegedly stopped close to our nuclear installation in Kahuta. Such stories fuel the already high levels of anti-Americanism in the country.




The US attitude in Afghanistan is also giving rise to misgivings. It is allowing Indian presence there to enlarge rapidly. The opening of new consulates is just one part of it. Indian civil institutions and private contractors in every field are also a growing presence. If the US wants to win hearts and minds in Pakistan, it has to show greater sensitivity to our concerns.




The Americans also need to clarify their attitude towards known anti-Pakistan figures, such as Brahmdagh Bugti and others, who are being given refuge in Afghanistan. There is sufficient evidence, according to Pakistan government, of Indian meddling in Balochistan. By giving refuge to the so-called Baloch nationalists, the Americans appear to be colluding with them.




It is in this context that the conditions attached to the Kerry-Lugar Bill raised so many doubts in Pakistan. If there had been no worries regarding American intentions, some of the intemperate language may have been tolerated given the larger framework of support contained in it. But the feeling that Americans are not playing straight, led to the strong response in the country.




This is also the reason that the Zardari-led PPP government's perceived policy of totally giving in to every American demand is creating much stress within the security establishment. Stories in the media have identified blanket permissions given by the Ministry of Interior to the American embassy on arms import and travel of its security personnel as one serious sore point. There may be others not in the public domain.




As opposed to the way the government handles its relationship with the Americans, Pakistani armed forces appear to have a more nuanced approach to this partnership. They play their part effectively, where the interests of the two sides coincide. But, if there is a divergence, they are not shy in articulating their differences. It is not an adversarial relationship but it is also not a complete submission. The perception is that the government has totally surrendered.




This has become the substantive point of difference between the military and President Zardari. It was reflected in the terse language of the statement issued after the last Corp Commanders conference. The deference accorded in it to the parliament as opposed to the government or the president, was also noticeable. It was a message that clearly made its point to Mr Zardari.




In a country with a strong parliamentary tradition, the import of the message may have been nothing more than a difference of opinion between two institutions of the government. But, given our history, it was obviously unsettling for President Zardari. He countered it by the only option available to him. He reached out to Mr Nawaz Sharif.




This put Nawaz Sharif in a quandary because while he deeply distrusted Asif Zardari, he wanted to play his role to stabilise democracy. In the end, he chose to go because saving the system was more important to him. While this strengthened the president, it is not going to be without cost. He will have to give up all powers contained in the 17th Amendment, including the ability to appoint service chiefs.




Government Ministers have already begun to create the atmosphere for it by claiming that the President never wanted these powers anyway. The Rabbani committee, which earlier seemed to be an exercise in futility, has become relevant and the likelihood is that its recommendations including repeal of the seventeenth amendment will be accepted. This will be Zardari's quid pro quo to the overt support extended by Nawaz Sharif.




There still could be hiccups on the way because Mr Zardari's track record of keeping promises is not particularly good. But, he has run out of options and is likely to give in. He will, of course, remain the co-chairperson of the party, and this still gives him a platform to influence government decisions. But, his legal powers will vanish.




It also means that the decision to appoint the next chief or give an extension to General Kayani would lie with Prime Minister Gillani. Given the security situation in the country, and for the sake of continuity, there is every likelihood that the army chief will get another term.




If the repeal of the 17th Amendment takes place, would that be the end of President Zardari's troubles? In the realm of politics yes but the NRO issue is still to be resolved. It is impossible to predict how this will play out in parliament and the courts.




Email: shafqatmd@gmail.com