Remotely Controlling Pakistani Politics By Dr. Mahjabeen IslamWashington, DC: There are three types of Pakistani-Americans, I’ve decided. The first is the set that would have you believe that they were entirely European, and wish not the faintest link with Pakistan and what happens there is not the smallest blip in their horizon. Then there is the set that is interested in the future of America as well as what course politics in Pakistan takes. The third category, as hapless as the first is here only in body; for the spirit, mind, heart and soul it resides in Pakistan. APPNA members at Capitol HillIt is the last two categories perhaps that make up the group that organized a forum to examine women’s issues in South Asia, and some of them are part of APSA, The Action Group of Physicians of South Asia who organized a meeting of Pakistani politicians. Both these events were held at the summer meeting of APPNA, Association of Pakistani Physicians of North America, in Washington, D.C. in June this year.The speakers for the women’s issues forum were Hina Jilani a lawyer and secretary of a human rights organization in Pakistan and Raheel Kazi an MP elected on the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, MMA ticket in Pakistan. At the inception a short film about the Hudood Ordinance and how it has wreaked havoc in peoples’ lives was shown. Ms. Kazi was connected to the forum by telephone from Pakistan for she could not attend as the National Assembly was in session. Both speakers were given an opportunity to make a brief presentation of their points of view and right off the bat Ms. Kazi complained that the “other side” was always given more time and that she had sent a Power Point presentation which should have been shown and there was another film that gave their point of view and that should have been screened as well.Ms. Kazi felt that everything in Pakistan was being wrongfully ascribed to the Hudood Ordinance and that just removing one law would not take care of the problem. She felt that it was important that in relation to article 227 all laws would be made Islamic and that we all should be glad that this was happening instead of trying to repeal the Hudood Ordinance for it serves as a deterrent. Also that the media and government organizations ought to play a role in underscoring the above sentiment.Hina Jilani thanked the organizers and said that the fact that this forum was organized went to prove that people care. She emphasized that those subjected to the Hudood Ordinace were real people and not fictitious characters, and they had not suffered Divine law but a law formulated by one who now heads the National Reconstruction Bureau. At the time that the law was formulated, dissenters were beaten up, labeled as heretics and jailed. She said that there was a tendency to mislead by saying that the law is being misapplied when in actuality there is a problem with the application of the law. The basic argument in Pakistan is on whether the law should be amended or repealed. The fact though is that the law is so deeply flawed that there is no amending it. Her organization has examined all 22 sections of the law, and 18 of them are badly drafted or there is a procedural lacuna. Most of the victims of the law are women and non-Muslim minorities but men suffer as well. A significant issue with the law is that a woman’s capacity as a full witness is not accepted and children are punished as though they are adults. The definition of an adult is a woman who has attained puberty, or else age 16 and a man who has attained puberty or else age 18. The huge inherent contradiction is that a female child can be punished as an adult, but even when she is 16 or over, her evidence cannot be taken. Azeem Miyan of Geo TV accused Raheel Kazi of protecting Zia-ul-Haq and his law and not protecting Islamic law, but like with all other questions/accusations Ms. Kazi simply said that there was nothing wrong with the law. Period. When asked whether a woman can be a witness, Kazi vehemently stated that she could for Khadija in her time did give evidence and a woman was a witness against the Caliph of her time, Usman. Hina Jilani said simply that under the Hudood Ordinance the way it is currently, a woman cannot give evidence equal to a man. A doctor in the audience asked why Benazir was not able to do away with the law to which Ms. Jilani replied that Benazir inherited Zia’s “chadar and chardeewari” prescription for women and she tried to set up committees to do away with the law but was unsuccessful.During the vibrant discussion, there was agreement that feudalism and the fact that right after partition India did away with it and Pakistan did not had a lot to do with the suppression of women. Another questioner asked Ms. Kazi how this law was justifiable when Islam was based on justice and compassion. Ms. Kazi remained a stalwart of the Nazi propagandist Goebbels’ premise that if you repeat something often enough it becomes the truth and stolidly restated that there was nothing wrong with the law. I asked Ms. Kazi if being a woman she felt any compassion for the hundreds of women that languish in prison due to this heinous law deliver and raise children in jail, Ms. Kazi obtusely said that women under Islamic law should not go to jail at all! Huh?In true medical style a physician asked what could be done and Ms. Jilani prognosticated dimly: there is no question of getting consensus to repeal the law, but we should be able to put in a stitch or two to amend it. The discussion was lively but it was plain that pushed by myopic misdirected types like Ms. Kazi, the Hudood Ordinance would outlive all in that room. APSA had gotten quite a mix of Pakistani politicians together to discuss democracy in Pakistan and sure enough the discussion was lively, leaving one wishing that there had been more time to continue it. Aqil Shah is pursuing a doctorate in political science at Columbia University. He attributed the weakness of Pakistani politics to feudalism and military dominance. He stated that since 1977 no government had completed its term and the military cannot run Pakistan and it does not allow anyone to run it either. “The military government has a hammer but everything is not a nail” was greeted with loud applause. Pakistan is a military façade and they wish to subordinate the judiciary and the entire state. He said that religious parties were important in Pakistan but the MMA was appropriately called the “mullah military alliance”, and the military had always groomed fringe alliances. The military had ensured that the MMA won in the election and it turns around and tells the US that it is a bulwark against extremism, which it is not. Aqil Shah was full of catchy phrases, another one was that “there is freedom of expression but is there freedom after expression?” and “the Pakistan military is the main part of the problem and it pretends to be the solution” and ominously that festering political grievance can lead to agitation. In greeting Senator Tariq Azam Khan of PML-Q, the audience proved that despite high education, grievances could transform people into veritable hooligans. Boos from the audience tried to silence the senator but he was courageous and dignified, leaving me embarrassed at the puerile behavior of my colleagues. “We are here to have a discussion,” he said while the organizers exhorted the hecklers to practice the parliamentary behavior that is vital to the democracy that they wished practiced. Senator Tariq analogized democracy to medical parlance and the condition of the patient. The condition of Pakistan was important, he said, and whilst the US was such a great proponent of democracy it did not insist on its institution when it liberated Kuwait, but as far as Pakistan goes the US continually uses it as a stick.Senator Tariq Azam Khan spoke about the 1977 election whence the cab driver that had driven him to the polls did not know who he had voted for, just that it was the lion symbol. The senator felt that it was important to understand which part of the world one was dealing with, and what type of democracy one wanted, and that in Pakistan the army had been involved in every decision. People had traditionally wanted the “Pindi route” than the democracy route, in reference to wanting the army rather than civilian rule. Democracy had given Pakistan Mr. 10% and billions had been looted he said in reference to Benazir’s husband Asif Ali Zardari’s extracting a 10% commission from all and sundry during her heyday. Army rule, he said, had brought “Mr. Clean”. This ignited another round of unruliness in the audience and I had to control myself for I really wanted to join them.Ahsan Iqbal of PML-N spoke about the knowledge revolution and that without the participation of the people there could not be any advancement of note. The biggest crisis, he said, was the crisis of power and when there was complete loss of self-esteem there was a depression and the army has convinced the people that everything was ruined and that it had now come to save Pakistan. Pakistanis are not any less honest nor any more corrupt than any other nation and even if an illiterate taxi driver does not know whom he has voted for he cannot be denied the right to self-governance. He said that democracy had failed in Pakistan because the generals carve out a role for themselves and he had told the American government that if democracy could be given to Iraq, what was Pakistan’s fault that the same yardstick was not used. Aitazaz Ahsan of the PPP traced the rise of the military to power in 1958 with its consummation when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan at which time the mullah-military alliance became stronger still. In what is now a symbiotic relationship the generals are able to tell the US that if they (the generals) are not there the mullahs will come in and they tell the mullahs that if they (the generals) are not there the US will come in. He said that the army and the mullahs threaten vulnerable society and that he had a pessimistic view about democracy coming in Pakistan.The question and answer session of the Hudood Ordinance meeting paled in comparison to the almost confrontational tone of this one. Nayyer Zaidi of Jang/Geo wanted to know the prognosis of Pakistan and when the General would take off his uniform. The questions were sadly rhetorical. He did ask Ahsan Iqbal why he had felt that joining the party of a man that had been groomed by the generals would be a good one to join, Iqbal answered that he had found Nawaz Sharif’s economic plan attractive and had hoped he would see the importance of democracy.Amy Goodman of Free Speech TV/Democracy Now asked a very pertinent question: would Musharraf be there without US support and why was the US supporting a general in uniform? Aqil Shah explained the reasoning by quoting Roosevelt: “He might be an SOB but he is our SOB”. An uncomfortable question raised was that Nawaz Sharif froze Pakistani money but diverted his own money to foreign accounts and created his own town of Raiwind, and similarly Benazir looted the exchequer. Ahsan Iqbal amid much protest by the audience said that all banking transactions were documented and that none of what was alleged took place. Benazir defender, Aitazaz Ahsan said that on the dismissal of the government in August 1990, Asif Ali Zardari was taken before a set of hand -picked judges and there was a lot of bribing. He was acquitted of all charges between 1990 and 1993 and that he was innocent until proven guilty. On the connection of feudalism and democracy, Aitazaz Ahsan said that the biggest feudal lord in the country was the army with a multitude of organizations it holds such as the Fauji Foundation and extensive property as well. Senator Tariq said that Nawaz Sharif was convicted in the 2000 steel mill case, to which Aqil Shah promptly dispensed another one liner: we need protection by the military as much as we need protection from the military. Ahsan Iqbal demanded the right to self-governance and observed that Musharraf had cleansed the two parties that were under his wing, and he also wondered where Musharraf’s “enlightened moderation” was when Shahbaz Sharif was being thrown out. There was a consensus that the problem in Pakistan was that institutions were weak and people were strong and that in India institutions were strong. In answer to a volley of questions Senator Tariq stated that the army does not have a role in ruling the nation but that it had been invited to do so due to the misdeeds of the political masters. He exhorted political parties to have elections within their parties as well. Aqil Shah said that in the absence of civilian oversight the army had gone into many misadventures. Amid much applause Aitazaz Ahsan traced the “yes sir” phenomenon as causing some of the current misadventures. When a recruit joins Kakul he is ragged till he says “yes sir” to all superiors, and then the Major says “yes sir” to all of his and so on till the Commander-in-Chief at 3 o’clock in the morning says “yes sir” to Colin Powell when he demands to know whether Pakistan was with the US in the fight against terrorism or not. About a year and a half ago I had written, “Hudood Ordinance Has Reached Its Hudd” for the Pakistan Link and emailed the article to a high-up in the Pakistan government. Musharraf apparently read the article but the time was not right then for him to challenge the mullahs and recommend repeal of the Hudood Ordinance. He seems to think that the time now is ripe, though with as polarized as the politics in Pakistan has become and Musharraf’s own life hangs in the balance, it is highly doubtful that anything will come of it. Clashing with the APSA meeting was a luncheon by an organization that is primarily concerned with American politics and looks upon this kind of meeting with Pakistani politicians as a waste as there is no focus on the futures of our children in America. As I was able to influence the review of the Hudood Ordinance by my article last year, physicians especially since they are the upper echelon of earning power in the US, have a definite ability to affect politics in Pakistan. It is well known that in the Third World, only he who America wants will rule, so in response to the above criticism, it was my turn to be glib: these meetings are important for just a shuttle ride away was the Capitol and it is not exaggeration to say that the US Capitol holds the key to who rules Pakistan. And the two categories of Pakistani-Americans believe that they can at least try to remotely control politics in Pakistan: perseverance for the return of democracy may well command success. One day.inshAllah.