Original Articles

Pakistan and the Search for Identity (Part 1) – by Rusty Walker

About the author: Rusty Walker is an Independent Political Analyst, educator, author, Vietnam veteran-era U.S. Air Force, from a military family, retired college professor, former Provost (Collins College, U.S.A.), artist, musician and family man. Rusty Walker is an ardent supporter of Pakistan.

The following essay examines nine common narratives, over a four part series. Essentially the thesis explores Pakistan’s identity for the future and the need for taking responsibility for the past. Recurring themes are the: civilian government vs. the military identity, and the default to blaming the U.S. for Pakistan issues. There are certainly more flawed narratives these I have offered, but if even these few are ignored it tends to add to the current conspiracy of silence. Such politically correct notions tend to keep Pakistan in an identity crisis, and passively ignoring core truths that contribute to positive change, healing and renewal. And, a brief review of Pakistan’s tumultuous history will sufficiently inform why I use “healing” as an apt term. Most articles in the South Asian press and blogs are inclined towards Pakistan-as-victim. This is often balanced with the United States or India as persecutors. The post-article comments are often inundated with what the U.S. or India has done to make Pakistan the economically fragile and politically dangerous place that it is today. Even in the Left wing U.S. media, or, anti-West biased journalists appearing on Al Jazeera (tacitly pro-Islamist), use jihadist language, “American imperialism” is said to drive everything to ruin in the Middle East and South Asia, with no accountability assigned to the nations themselves. Let’s assume for sake of argument that the U.S. is an imperial war machine, although I would dispute that, are the Pakistanis’ still not responsible for their own self-determination? Are the Pakistanis not to blame for any result? Are Pakistanis really victims?

The relentless complaints about the U.S. from Pakistan press conveniently stifle meaningful debate, and tend to deflect culpability. False narratives are most effective when fact is mixed with fiction. While such rhetoric obfuscates Pakistan issues, it is useful to the pseudo-secular, fake civil society that attempt to manipulate and sabotage progressive thought for political advantage. The colloquy containing half-truths may sound like the following flawed assertions we so often hear:

On the question of Pakistan’s true identity:

1. “Pakistan is not a military or authoritarian state, it is an Islamic democratic-republic, and the Army has only taken over government when the elected government didn’t do its job.”

 

Many people reach a point where they realize that the shape their life has taken does not square with the ambitions they originally had for it. Nations sometimes have to come to terms with this identity crisis as well. In foreign policy and many domestic decisions, isn’t Pakistan more accurately described as being run by the military rather than its elected democratic government? Certainly presidents/prime ministers are aware of the ever present threat of a military takeover if policy does not go its way given the history of Pakistan. Short of a take over, there are many ways an embedded culture of military and security operatives can shape civilian realities. The military and ISI currently share a kinship with Islamist radicals, evident in the unchecked violence from Sindh to FATA. To stand up against Blasphemy Laws puts one in eminent danger; to petition the government or deride the military from Baluchistan, is to risk turning up missing as Rangers roam the area. To question the military from the office of the president risks a coup and martial law. What is the true identity of such a nation?

What is the identity of Pakistan? A democracy? A modern Muslim state, a fundamental  Islamist nation? Or, is it in fact, military authoritarian? Listening to political parties’ divergent views on the role of government in politics is instructive: PML-Q Quaid-e-Azam group are aligned with a past military dictator General Musharraf, recently accused again of corruption. Musharraf originally formed a government after rigged elections; and then there are the Islamist apologists:  the PML-N is now supported by religious extremists. The party has been accused of widespread corruption and extrajudicial killings carried out presumably with Pak Army and ISI approval. Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League, Nawaz has been a supporter of General Hameed Gul; MQM, is a party associated with bloody political killings in Karachi in the mid-1990s and again today; there are the other smaller parties, ANP Awami National Party of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province, did support the US in anti-Taliban measures. The antagonism between political parties in Pakistan range from unsubstantiated accusations to violence to assassination: Isn’t the PPP the only party that does not attempt to use Islamist rhetoric to get the Muslim vote?

Note that each party accuses the other of corruption- and there is no party leader who has NOT been accused of corruption, including the sitting president and his martyred wife. To face these truths does not mean we fall apart, but it does grant clarity in as to where we have been, and where we need to go to repair our reputation.

Turning our attention to the current elected president and government, the tendency of social chatter all too frequently is to attempt to discredit the PPP.  There is a progressive liberal contingency that favors democratic and liberal agenda and apparently an elite liberal-set who clearly favors the military in Pakistan. The urban- elite will chastise the PPP for dropping the Blasphemy Law repeal after Taseer (PPP) was killed, forgetting that even while Sherry Rehman (PPP) was threatened and had to go into hiding she still supported repealing it; The repeal will obviously be a slow process, but the PPP put it on the table.

It is useful to remember when criticizing, that when you are actually serving in office, you are at risk. Critics often fail to remember that any Pakistan political party must show caution with regards to the Army and ISI. Those are the current realities on the ground in Pakistan today. The PPP is the only electable democratic political party that is for democratic liberties, and pluralism, and there are no other alternatives that do not show sympathy for Islamic laws currently embedded in the Constitution. There appears to be no other parties on the horizon that could or would address the Islamist legacy provisions in the Constitution. The only hope for the future of democracy in Pakistan may be the PPP. Or, could it be the MQM with its incontrollable gangs of bloody violence in the streets of Karachi? Or, the PLM-N chief Nawaz Sharif who spouts political rhetoric and platitudes? Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif future election strategy, stunningly includes aligning with Deobandi terrorist organization Sipah-e-Sahaba;  Doesn’t the recent alliances of Jamaat-i-Islami’s chief Syed Munawwar Hasan with PML-N chief Mian Nawaz Sharif and MQM leader Altaf Hussain startle civil society or is our identity so confused we need to align with radicals? Any party that obstructs repealing the blasphemy law, or the Ahmadis ordinances, are Islamist stakeholders stuck in the dark days of General Zia ul Haq.

The ANP is on terrorist hit lists, as are some on the path of sacred path of Imam Hussain; it is Pakhtun brother against brother in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. And then there is Imran Khan who has been referred to as Pakistan’s version of Sarah Palin; attractive, immensely charming and likeable, but naïve and shallow, unprepared for running a government. The reality is that Sarah Palin actually ran a successful state as governor. Even those credentials are not part of the cult of personality driving Imran Khan’s pretense to moderation. Who does not like Imran Khan? But, likeability is no substitute for a principled politician with an intrepid belief in a democratic Pakistan. A democratic identity may not square with Islamist rhetoric or military allegiance that appears to be an essential element in politics, with the exception of PPP.

Discrediting the PPP through its history is becoming a stale game: corruption allegations of deceased Z. Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto, past allegations of Zardari Swiss bank accounts. It is noteworthy that all these attacks were generated by political opposition, or the military, never substantiated, and the record of “extrajudicial killings” under Bibi’s terms in office point more to ISI-operations that persist through every official that has held office in Pakistan. The charge of her “brutal handling” of the Karachi riots, regardless of who gave the order actually brought the violence under control. Again, the army was involved in these measures as they are today. President Zardari’s prior imprisonment appears in hindsight due to political rivals, as does the relentless cynicism attributed to the label “10%” meant to taint any good that Zardari has done. Given the choice of the field, why would democratic-minded pluralistic and liberty-conscious civil society continually demonize the PPP, its only real chance at democracy? Disparaging the only pro-democratic party up for election that separates religion and politics appears to be another example of forgetting the Democratic identity and goals of the majority of Pakistan civil society.

Politics can easily devolve into dysfunction, as it seems to have recently in the U.S. name-calling over economic debates. The establishment press often assaults the PPP as if there were an alternative. The choice is radical Islamic party sympathizers and Sharia law, military-driven politics, or democracy.

During Jinnah’s time, the democratic-minded, secular-elite believed in a westernized civil society as did the Shiite-minority. The Sunni-majority, Sufi-influenced Barelvi sect, strongly disagreed and still do.  Why wouldn’t the identity of Pakistan be confused in some measure? The Urdu poet-philosopher Mohammad Iqbal, called for the amalgamation to Punjab, the Northwest Frontier Province, Sind, and Baluchistan into a ‘single state” as the “final destiny” of “Muslims.”[1] Zulfi Bhutto confirmed Jinnah’s message in 1976, “ ‘My government happens to be attuned to modern humanism…Pakistan brings to everyone of us irrespective of caste, colour or religious creed,’ echoing Jinnah’s first speech to the Constituent Assembly in Karachi  on 11 August 1947.”[2] Jinnah’s vision was of a secular state for Muslims, with freedom of religion, perhaps not unlike Turkey is today.

Jinnah and Iqbal did not live long enough to assure that their combined and rational balance of secular and moderate-Islamic ideals would become the identity of the new Pakistan. Was this to be an Islamist state of Sharia Law, based on its million strong Sunni population or a military authoritarian government based on an existential threat from India? The Constitution as it is now, containing Islamist law, combines feudalism with modern justice is a conflicted document.

The initial precedent of Pakistan turning from civilian-controlled police force to the military in order to control rebellious groups began as early as the 1950s. As early as 1956 military intervention and Islamist-will was imposed on the Dominion of Pakistan as Jamaat-I Islami activists rioted over demands that Ahmadi sect be declared non-Muslims. The president, Major General Iskander Mirza declared Martial Law and announced plans to rewrite what he decided was an overly democratic Constitution.

This resulted in the first of many military interventions over civil government and a perfectly capable civilian police force that would become marginalized, under-funded and insufficiently trained. General Muhammad Ayub Khan subsequently conducted a bloodless coup sending Mirza into exile. General Khan was equally anti-democratic, anti-India and pro-military (60% of the budget even then went to military). Three things were established in Khan’s day- the ISI tasked to monitor political rivals; civilian police were marginalized by regular army, or rangers, blurring the lines of what is criminal behavior, versus what is national interest; “for the good of the people” justified the military coup, martial law, or the threat of both became a valid use of military power.

A Civil government that functions under the intimidation of an unelected authoritarian power, the Umma, or threat of a military dictatorship, is not conducive to a “democratic” state representative of its people.

We should honestly respect the Pakistan military as a formidable force whose job it is to protect Pakistan’s national security. The problem occurs when a military and its security apparatus (ISI) is not accountable to civil government, the elected officials that meet with heads of state, and attempt to guide a nation’s international and national policy. This is sabotaged by military mentality, instead of diplomacy. Such a mind-set, results in a society so habituated to its status quo that it becomes the accepted norm to see military in Karachi suppressing violent political gangs, instead of civilian police, who should have been sufficiently funded and trained to contain lawlessness and manage riot control.


[1] Jinnah of Pakstan, Wolpert, p145.

 

[2] Life and Times of Zulfi Bhutto, Wolpert, 1993.

intervention and Islamist-will was imposed on the Dominion of Pakistan as Jamaat-I Islami activists rioted over demands that Ahmadi sect be declared non-Muslims. The president, Major General Iskander Mirza declared Martial Law and announced plans to rewrite what he decided was an overly democratic Constitution.

This resulted in the first of many military interventions over civil government and a perfectly capable civilian police force that would become marginalized, under-funded and insufficiently trained. General Muhammad Ayub Khan subsequently conducted a bloodless coup sending Mirza into exile. General Khan was equally anti-democratic, anti-India and pro-military (60% of the budget even then went to military). Three things were established in Khan’s day- the ISI tasked to monitor political rivals; civilian police were marginalized by regular army, or rangers, blurring the lines of what is criminal behavior, versus what is national interest; “for the good of the people” justified the military coup, martial law, or the threat of both became a valid use of military power.

A Civil government that functions under the intimidation of an unelected authoritarian power, the Umma, or threat of a military dictatorship, is not conducive to a “democratic” state representative of its people.

We should honestly respect the Pakistan military as a formidable force whose job it is to protect Pakistan’s national security. The problem occurs when a military and its security apparatus (ISI) is not accountable to civil government, the elected officials that meet with heads of state, and attempt to guide a nation’s international and national policy. This is sabotaged by military mentality, instead of diplomacy. Such a mind-set, results in a society so habituated to its status quo that it becomes the accepted norm to see military in Karachi suppressing violent political gangs, instead of civilian police, who should have been sufficiently funded and trained to contain lawlessness and manage riot control.

About the author

Rusty Walker

About the author: Rusty Walker is a world-travelled, Independent Political Analyst, educator, author, Vietnam veteran-era U.S. Air Force, from a military family, retired college professor, former Provost (Collins College, U.S.A.), artist, musician and family man. Rusty Walker is an ardent supporter of Pakistan.

12 Comments

Click here to post a comment
  • The reason I even consider analyzing Pakistan, is that I attempt to use only constructive criticism. I have been able to face illusions I had about my country over time, and found that I still love my country; even in the face of some spectacular mistakes in the over 200 years of United States history. Our difficulty is that those of us that love our country often hold to belief systems about it, and forget that not learning from history makes us “condemned to repeat it” – all too often the case with the nations, and the U.S. and Pakistan, as different as they may be, are no exception. We, think we bring 20/20 hindsight but more often the possibility of revisionist history to bear, and so it can be a difficult matter to even figure out the unbiased truth, let alone come to terms with it.

    I don’t accept verbal attacks on my country and neither should you. I do listen to constructive criticisms, as there may be some insights I can consider, even if my conclusions are different. I wouldn’t expect any anything less from my reader. It is irrelevant to the article whether readers are pro-American or anti-military; what is important to understanding this essay is that you are pro-Pakistan and anti-terrorism.

    Two last items:

    “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” – John Adams

    “Hindsight is not only clearer than perception-in-the-moment but also unfair to those who actually lived through the moment.”
    – Edwin S. Shneidman, Autopsy of A Suicidal Mind

  • I was hoping for more feedback from readers, but alas, I have had some on my personal e-mail from my friends in Pakistan who have read my article and written me and here is an example of some fair criticism I have received:

    “You mentioned MQM as a terrorist/ bloody party, i disagree your knowledge is based upon govt. propaganda (that a failed state always put all the blame on the most weak minority)–its not that only Muhajirs live in karachi, 50% or even more are the outsiders always entering in the city.. there are mafia operating, there are agencies of Pak Army/isi working for their ulterior designs…karachi is a major source of their illegal revenue. why one would blame all the crimes in karachi to MQM, are the other people not involved? do you have any prove that all the crimes were done by muhajirs????..why are you attributing violence in karachi to a democratic elected secular party???—“

    I think this is fair criticism of my assessment of a difficult political tragedy in Karachi. Perhaps a retraction regards the MQM is in order. I am not an expert in the political arena of Pakistan and do not presume to say I am. Of all the aspects of Pakistan, the political party violence in Karachi baffles me the most.
    I do not mean to indict the MQM (in fact, I thought the coalition of PPP/MQM had/has positive potential). My research in this area did seem to bring a lot of violence associated with them, but I was a little reluctant to mention it as it is a sensitive area. I do not think that the Muhajirs and the MQM are the “reason” for the violence. It may be more accurate to say the fair-minded political leaders of the MQM, ANP, PPP or other parties sometimes associated with this violence, including the ethnic Pashtuns, Sindhs, Muhjirs, et. al. do not approve of it.
    Would it be fairer to say that the political violence in Karachi is from gangs seeking financial advantage, some are politically-charged revenge, and some are ethnically-biased individuals, and ALL should be considered criminals? It may be more accurate to say that these are gangs that do NOT represent the parties they claim to represent.

    My major point in Karachi is to consider the violence criminal, not politicized- and then, to raise the pay of police, fund and train the civilian police, modernize their units, arm them sufficiently to handle mob violence- so that the Army/Rangers/ISI that sometimes have political undertones, is not a factor.

  • پيپلزپارٽيءَ جي سياسي خودڪشي

    عبدالوهاب منشي

    سنڌ جي نئين وائسراءِ بابر اعواڻ گذريل ڏينهن سنڌ ۾ اچڻ کان پوءِ پنهنجا اهي سڀ اختيار ڏيکاريا، جيڪي ڪڏهن پاڪستان جي صدر مملڪت به استعمال نه ڪيا هوندا. بابر اعواڻ سنڌ جي گورنر وڏي وزير ۽ سنڌ جي وزيرن جي وڏي ٽيم جي موجودگيءَ ۾ سنڌ ۾ ٻه انتظامي اختيار رکڻ، ڪراچي حيدرآباد کي پراڻي حيثيت يعني ناظمي نظام ۾ بحال ڪرڻ، ڪراچيءَ ۽ حيدرآباد مان ڪمشنري نظام جو خاتمو حيدرآباد ۽ ڪراچيءَ کي هڪ ئي ضلعي جي طورتي پراڻي حيثيت ۾ بحال ڪرڻ، پوليس آرڊر ۾ ردوبدل ڪرڻ، تعليمي بورڊ واپس گورنر جي حوالي ڪرڻ جي لاءِ نه صرف پريس ڪانفرنس ڪئي پر اهڙن حڪمن کان پوءِ سنڌ صوبي ۾ ناظمي نظام سان گڏ ڪراچي ۽ حيدرآباد کي اڻ سنڌي طرح رياستون تسليم ڪيو ويو آهي، جن جو صوبي جي باقي انتظامي وهنوار سان ڪو به واسطو نه رهندو. سنڌ حڪومت هاڻي صوبي جي بجيٽ پيش ڪندي پر جيئن ته ڪراچي ۽ حيدرآباد عمليءَ طرح سنڌ حڪومت ۾ شامل نه هوندا. تنهن ڪري اهي پنهنجي بجيٽ پاڻ پيش ڪندا. پنهنجي حدن ۾ آيل سرڪاري زمينن، سڀني کاتن جي بجيٽ، سرڪاري مشينري ۽ سرڪاري بجيٽ جا ناظم ائين ئي وارث هوندا، جيئن اڳ خيرپور رياست يا بهاولپور رياست جا بادشاهه سلامت رياستن جا والي هوندا هئا.
    يورپي يونين هاڻي هندستان سان آزاد واپار ڪرڻ چاهي ٿي. يورپي يونين جو محور هاڻي نه صرف هندستان آهي پر ڏکڻ ايشيا پڻ آهي، انهيءَ ڪري يورپي يونين کي هن خطي سان آزاد واپار ڪرڻ جي لاءِ ڪراچيءَ ۾ انهن کي واپاري ڪوٺيون گهرجن ٿيون، جتي اچي يورپ جا واپاري ايسٽ انڊيا جي طرز تي واپار ڪري ٻيهر ڏکڻ ايشيا تي پنهنجو ڪنٽرول چاهين ٿا، انگلينڊ ۽ يورپ کي خبر آهي ته هاڻي هٿيارن جي جنگ جو دور گذري چڪو آهي. هاڻي معاشي جنگ ئي هلندي ڪنهن به ملڪ کي هاڻي فتح ڪرڻ جي لاءِ سرمائيدار ملڪ هاڻي انهن جي معاشيات تباهه ڪن ٿا ۽ پوءِ امداد جي آڙ ۾ انهن ملڪن تي پنهنجا اختيار قائم ڪري انهن تي حڪم هلائين ٿا. اهو ئي سبب آهي ته انگلينڊ ڪراچيءَ کي هڪ ڌار خطو قائم ڪرڻ جي ڪوشش جي لاءِ پنهنجا سفارتڪار استعمال ڪري ڪراچيءَ ۾ بدامني، لاقانونيت ۽ دهشت گردي ڦهلائي ڪراچي کي هڪ الڳ صوبي ٺاهڻ جي لاءِ راهه هموار ڪري رهيا آهن. جنهن جي شروعات سنڌ جو وائسراءِ بابر اعواڻ پنهنجي غيرقانوني پريس ڪانفرنس ڪري سنڌ ۾ ٻه انتظامي نظام جو اعلان ڪيو آهي جنهن کان پوءِ عمليءَ طرح سنڌ ٻه اڌ ٿي ويئي آهي. بابر اعواڻ نه وزير آهي نه ملڪ جو صدر ۽ نه سنڌ جو ڪو چونڊيل نمائندو ۽ نه سنڌ جو رهواسي انهيءَ ماڻهوءَ کي اهڙو حق ڪنهن ڏنو آهي ته هو اچي سنڌ کي ٻه حصا ڪرڻ لاءِ گورنر هائوس ۾ ويهي آرڊر جاري ڪرائي. جنرل مشرف ته هڪ آمر هو جنهن پنهنجي آمريت کي طاقت ڏيڻ جي لاءِ ۽ پنهنجي آمريت کي ڊيگهه ڏيڻ جي لاءِ سنڌ کي ٽڪرا ڪري جاگيرن ۾ تبديل ڪري ڇڏيو پر هاڻي ته ملڪ ۾ نه آمريت آهي ۽ نه مارشل لا لاڳو آهي تنهن هوندي به سنڌ ۾ ٻه نظام لاڳو ڪرڻ ڪنهن به طرح نه جمهوريت جي مفاد ۾ آهي ۽ نه ڪنهن به طرح پيپلزپارٽيءَ جي حق ۾ آهي. پيپلزپارٽيءَ جي حڪومت اهڙو فيصلو ڪري هڪ طرف پنهنجي مينڊيٽ جي توهين ڪئي آهي ته ٻئي طرف سنڌ جي ماڻهن جي منهن تي هڪ اهڙي چماٽ وهائي ڪڍي آهي، جنهن سنڌين کي سوچڻ تي مجبور ڪيو آهي ته ڇا انهن پيپلزپارٽيءَ کي جيڪو مينڊيٽ ڏنو هو ڇا اهو کائن واپس ورتو وڃي يا کين روڪيو وڃي. گذريل چونڊن ۾ پيپلزپارٽي توڙي متحده قومي موومينٽ کي عوام ٻارنهن سيڪڙو ووٽ ڏنا هئا. جڏهن ته 88 سيڪڙو ماڻهن ڪنهن به طرح ووٽ نه ڏنا هئا ۽ انهن پنهنجي ووٽ کي محفوظ رکيو هو. پيپلزپارٽي جيڪڏهن ٻارنهن سيڪڙو ووٽن جو آئوٽ ٽرن کڻي آئي آهي ته انهيءَ جو مقصد کين صرف ۽ صرف حڪومت ڪرڻ هو پر انهيءَ جو مقصد ڪنهن به طرح سنڌ وڪڻڻ نه آهي ۽ نه سنڌ جي ماڻهن جي مقدر جو سودو ڪرڻ آهي. اڄ پيپلزپارٽي حڪومت ۾ آهي سڀاڻي سندن اهڙن ڪرتوتن تي عوام کين ووٽ ڏيندو. ڪالهه اهي ماڻهو جيڪي هندستان کي اپيلون ڪن پيا ته اهي پنج ڪروڙ مهاجرن کي پاڻ وٽ آباد ڪرائي، اهڙيون ڌريون اڄ تائين پاڪستاني ئي نه ٿي سگهيا آهن ته اهي سنڌ جي حصن جا ڪهڙيءَ طرح والي ٿين ٿا.
    سنڌ جي وائسراءِ بابر اعواڻ جي پريس ڪانفرنس ڪرڻ سان ۽ ڪراچي ۽ حيدرآباد ۾ نئين ناظم شپ وارو نظام آڻڻ وارو ڪم اهڙو ئي آهي جهڙو ايوب کهڙي ون يونٽ قائم ڪري ڏيکاريو هو.
    سنڌ کي پهريان وڏو نقصان ايوب خان ون يونٽ مڙهي پهچايو هو، پوءِ وري جنرل ضياءُ الحق ڪراچي ۾ ايم ڪيو ايم پيدا ڪري سنڌي ماڻهن کي جيئي ڀٽو جي نعري جو جواب ڏيڻ جي لاءِ رستو ٺاهيو ۽ هاڻي وري پيپلزپارٽيءَ وارا هٿ وٺي اسٽيبلشمينٽ جي چوڻ تي جيئي ڀٽو جي نعري کي ختم ڪري رهيا آهن.
    هاڻي سنڌ اسيمبليءَ جي ميمبرن تي وڏي ذميواري اچي ٿي ته اهي پنهنجي ڌرتي ماءُ کي به اڌ ڪرڻ واري سنڌ دشمنيءَ واري آرديننس جي خلاف عملي طور موقف واضح ڪن ٻي صورت ۾ سنڌي قوم ڪنهن به طرح ووٽ نه ڏيندا. جيڪڏهن سنڌ اسيمبليءَ جي ميمبرن پاران اهڙي آرڊيننس جي حق ۾ فيصلو ڏنو ويو ته پوءِ هو سمجهي ڇڏن ته سنڌ اسيمبليءَ جا ميمبر هٿ وٺي سنڌ کي ٻه اڌ ڪرڻ واري سازش ۾ برابر جا شريڪ هوندا ۽ جيڪڏهن سنڌ اسيمبليءَ جي سنڌي ميمبرن پوءِ کڻي اهو ڪهڙي پارٽيءَ سان به واسطو رکندڙ هوندو. انهن کي پنهنجي گهروارا به کين غدار سڏيندا ۽ کين گهر به اچڻ نه ڏيندا.
    متحده قومي موومينٽ جڏهن به حڪومت کان ڌار ٿيندي آهي ته ٻيا ته ڪيترائي دڙڪا دهمان ۽ مختلف ڪرتب بازيون ڏيکاريندا آهن پر جڏهن پ پ حڪومت کين گاهه نه وجهندي آهي ته پوءِ متحده قومي موومينٽ جا اڳواڻ اهو بيان ڏيندا آهن ته ”جيڪڏهن پ پ حڪومت سندن مطالبا نه مڃيا ته پوءِ هو محترمه بينظير ڀٽو جي قاتلن جا نالا پڌرا ڪندا“ اهڙي بيان اچڻ کان پوءِ پيپلزپارٽيءَ جي هوڏ جي مٿان پاڻي پئجي ويندو آهي ۽ پوءِ پهرئين ڀيري ته رحمان ملڪ کين پرچائي ويو هو متحده، حڪومت کان رسڻ کان پوءِ جڏهن ٻيو ڀيرو محترمه جي قاتلن بابت بيان ڏنو هو ته وزيراعظم نوڪرين جا صحيح ڪيل هزارين آرڊر کڻي نائين زيرو پهچي ويو هو ۽ متحده حڪومت ۾ واپس اچي ويئي هئي. پر هاڻي جڏهن رضا هارون آخري ڀيرو اهڙو بيان ڏنو هو تڏهن پيپلزپارٽي جي حڪومت جيڪا ڪراچيءَ ۾ آپريشن ڪرڻ جي لاءِ وڃي رهي هئي انهيءَ هڪدم ڪراچي ۾ دهشت گردن جي خلاف آپريشن ته بند ڪري ڇڏيو ۽ استعيفا ڏنل سنڌ جي گورنر کي پرچائي واپس پنهنجي سيٽ تي ويهاريو پر متحده کي راضي ڪرڻ ۽ محترمه جي قاتلن کي پڌرو نه ڪرڻ تي سنڌ کي انتظامي طور تي ٻه اڌ ته ضرور ڪيو ويو پر خبر نه آهي ته محترمه جا اهي ڪهڙا قاتل آهن، جن تي پردو رکڻ جي لاءِ پيپلزپارٽي هر اهو ڪم ڪرڻ جي لاءِ تيار ٿي وڃي ٿي جيڪو هر طرح سنڌ ۽ سنڌي عوام جي خلاف آهي. پر اهڙي عمل کان به نه پيو ڪيٻايو وڃي.
    پيپلزپارٽيءَ کي هن وقت نه سنڌ اسيمبليءَ ۾ ڪو خطرو آهي ۽ نه قومي اسيمبليءَ ۾ کيس ڪو خطرو لاڳو آهي. ق ليگ جي اچڻ کان پوءِ قومي اسيمبليءَ ۾ به پيپلزپارٽي جي حڪومت کي ڪو به لهر لوڏو نه آهي ۽ نه هن وقت نوازشريف حڪومت جي خلاف ڪا تحريڪ هلائي رهيو آهي. پيپلزپارٽي پنهنجي آزادي ۽ مرضيءَ سان حڪومت ڪري رهي آهي. حڪومت کي ٻه ڀيرا عدليه کان خطرو هو پر پاڪستان جي تاريخ ۾ عدليه جمهوري حڪومت کي طاقت بخشڻ جي لاءِ حڪومت طرفان عدليه خلاف هوڏ تي عدليه پٺتي هٽي هئي ۽ پنهنجي رويو نرم رکي جمهوريت کي ڪم ڪرڻ ڏنو هو، جنهن مان ثابت ٿئي ٿو ته عدليه ڪنهن به طرح جمهوري حڪومت جو خاتمو نه ٿي چاهي پر پيپلزپارٽي حڪومت ڇا اهو ٻڌائڻ چاهيندي ته سندس حڪومت کي آخرڪار اها ڪهڙي مجبوري آهي، جنهن جي ڪري اها هر وقت متحده جي اڳيان بليڪ ميل ٿيندي رهي آهي. پيپلزپارٽي هاڻي به پڌرو ڪري ته انهيءَ متحده سان ڪهڙن بنيادن تي ٺاهه ڪيو آهي جو رات جي اونداهيءَ ۾ گورنر هائوس مان آرڊيننس جاري ڪري سنڌ تي وار ڪيو پيو وڃي.
    پيپلزپارٽي جيڪڏهن پرويزمشرف جي ناظمي نظام جي حق ۾ ووٽ ڏنو ته پوءِ اسين سمجهون ٿا ته ايندڙ چونڊن ۾ پيپلزپارٽيءَ بجاءِ سنڌ جون اهي سڀ قومپرست ڌريون چونڊ کٽي اينديون، جيڪي سنڌ ۾ آرڊيننس تحت آيل آمريتي نظام جي خلاف تحريڪ هلائينديون.
    پيپلزپارٽي اسٽيبلشمينٽ جي حڪم تي اهي سڀ ڪم ڪرڻ لاءِ آخر ڇو تيار ٿي ويئي آهي جيڪي ڪم نه ڪرڻ تان ذوالفقار علي ڀٽي ڦاهي قبول ڪئي پر اصولن تي سودي بازي نه ڪندي بينظير ڀٽو ٻه دفعا پنهنجي حڪومت وڃائي ۽ آخرڪار پنهنجي اصولن تحت جان به ڏيئي ڇڏي پر آمريت جي اڳيان نه جهڪي ثابت ڪيو ته ڪڏهن پنهنجي اصولن تي ڪا سوديبازي ڪبي.
    پيپلزپارٽي وارن جو نعرو آهي ته ”جمهوريت بهترين انتقام آهي“ هن ڀيري پيپلزپارٽيءَ جمهوريت جي ذريعي ”انتقام“ ته ورتو آهي پر ٻئي ڪنهن کان نه پر پنهنجي عوام کان ئي ورتو آهي جن کين ووٽ ڏيئي اقتدار ۾ آندو آهي. اسين سمجهون ٿا ته جيڪڏهن پيپلزپارٽي پنهنجي ئي عوام کي اهڙيءَ طرح انتقام وٺڻ جو سلسلو جاري رکيو ته پوءِ اهڙو عمل پيپلزپارٽيءَ جي سياسي خودڪشي ئي هوندي.

  • بلاول ڀٽو جي سياست ۾ آمد کان اڳ بند ٿيندڙ دروازا

    ساره زمان

    توهان ڪراچي ۽ حيدرآباد کي انتظامي طور ڇو ٿا ڌار ڪريو؟ توهان ڪراچي ۽ حيدرآباد ۾ الڳ مڪاني سسٽم ڇو ٿا بحال ڪريو؟ توهان اهڙو فيصلو اسلام آباد مان آيل هڪ تڪراري شخص ۽ گورنر هائوس ۾ ٿيل سڄو ڏينهن ٿيل اجلاسن جي روشني ۾ سنڌ اسيمبلي جي فيصلي جو مذاق ڇو ٿا اڏايو؟ جي اهو سڀ ڪجهه ڪراچي ۾ ٿيل هڪ مهيني ۾ سوين ماڻهن جي قتلام جو نتيجو آهي ته ڪروڙين سنڌين جي انتظامي صوبي جي وحدت سان ڪيل اهو مذاق ۽ ان جا نتيجا ڪهڙا نڪرندا؟ ان جو ڪنهن سوچيو آهي؟ جي پيپلزپارٽي سنڌ جي وحدت خلاف ايترو اڳتي وڌي سگهي ٿي ته سنڌي ماڻهو جمهوريت لاءِ ڪهڙي راءِ رکن؟ جي سنڌ جي وحدت ختم ڪرڻ سان سنڌي ۽ اردو آبادين ۾ اختلاف وڌنڌا ۽ وڇوٽيون پيدا ٿي هڪ نئين تڪرار کي جنم ڏينديون ته جمهوري سرڪار جي غلط پاليسين جو نتيجو ليکبو يا اهو ڪري انهن تڪرارن کي ختم ٿيڻ جي ڪا راهه نڪري ايندي؟ اهي تمام سوال ۽ انهن سوالن مان نڪرندڙ ٻيا سوال ڪالهه واري فيصلي جو نتيجو آهن. ان سڄي عرصي ۾ سنڌي ماڻهن جي سوچ ۾ رڳو ان ئي ڏاڪي جو انتظار هيو ته سنڌي وڏيرن تي مشتمل هيءَ جمهوري سرڪار 1955ع واري ”ون يونٽ“ واري سوچ کان مختلف آهي يا پنهنجي سرڪار جي بچاءَ ۽ ڪجهه ڪيسن ۽ مقدمن کان آجپي لاءِ اهو سڀ ڪجهه ڪيو پيو وڃي. مون گذريل هفتي ڏڪي ڏڪي اهو لکيو هيو ته ”سنڌ ۾ غدارن جي فهرست رڳو ايوب کهڙي ۽ پير الاهي بخش تي ختم نه ٿي ٿئي“
    پر اڄ محسوس ڪري سگهجي ٿو ته انهن جي اولاد انهن جهڙو ئي غدار ئي ٿي سگهي ٿي. آچر ڏينهن لنڊن ۾ ويٺي انهن خبرن تي غور ڪندي مون سنڌ اسيمبلي جي سرڪاري ويب سائيٽ بند ڪيل آهي. آچر جون سموريون اخبارون ان جون گواهه آهن، سمورا ميمبر ۽ ايم اين اي سڀ جو سڀ خاموش آهي. سڀني کي پنهنجي پنهنجي ”ٽڪيٽ“ نه ملڻ جو خطرو آهي. انهن مان هڪ به سنڌي ايم پي اي سنڌ جي ورهاست تي آواز نه ڪڍيو آهي. هڪ نئون ”اونداهو دور“ شروع ٿي رهيو آهي سنڌي ماڻهن جي سڀ کان وڏي پارٽي پنهنجي منطقي تباهي جي رستي تي گامزن آهي، سنڌ جيڪا بينظير ڀٽو کانپوءِ (ليڊر کانسواءِ) هلي رهي آهي تنهن جي قتل جي باري ۾ آهستي آهستي نوان نوان ليڪا نڪرندا پيا اچن ۽ نيون نيون ڳالهيون سامهون اچي سياسي ماحول کي وڌيڪ شڪي ۽ مڪار بنائي رهيون آهن. سيپٽمبر ۾ ايندڙ بلاول ڀٽو جي سياست ۾ پير پائڻ کان اڳ ئي سندس نقصان شروع ٿي چڪو آهي. اهي تمام وڏيون سازشون گهڻن تهن هيٺان دٻيل آهن. لنڊن ۾ ڪيترائي فلم رڳو انهن جاسوسن تي ٺهيل آهن، سوين ڪتاب انهن جي ڪارنامن تي لکيل آهن جيڪي انهن سمورن واقعن کي ستن تهن مان ٻاهر ڪڍي پيش ڪندا رهيا آهن. انهن مان هڪ تازو ”اڄ جي تاريخ“ واري ويب سائيٽ تي پيل آهي، جيئن ته سنڌ اسيمبلي جي ويب سائيٽ خاموش ڪيل آهي ۽ جمهوريت پنهنجي سمورن سازن ۽ آوازن سان رقص ڪندي سنڌ”ٻليدان“ تي چاڙهي رهي آهي، ان سڄي غداري ۾ اچو ته ڪي پهلو ”ون يونٽ“ جي اونداهي تاريخ ۽ پس منظر جا ڏسئون ۽ ان دور ۾ ڪنهن ڇا ڪيو ۽ ڪنهن سان ڇا ٿيو؟ واري داستان کي ياد ڪرڻ لاءِ مسٽر عزيز شيخ جي لکت مان مدد وٺئون. 1847ع کان 1936ع تائين سنڌ انگريزن جي دور ۾ بمبئي پرڳڻي جو حصو رهي ۽ 89 سالن کانپوءِ آزاد ٿي. 11 سالن کانپوءِ پاڪستان جو صوبو بنجي ويئي. 2 مارچ 1949 تي ملڪ فيروز خان نون ون يونٽ جو سرسري خاڪو پيش ڪيو جنهن جي ٻئي ڏينهن بيگم شهناز جهان آرا حمايت ۾ بيان جاري ڪيو. ان نتيجي ۾ حمايت ۽ مخالفت ۾ بيان بازي شروع ٿي ويئي. پنجاب حمايت ۽ سنڌ مخالفت ڪئي.
    * مرڪزي سرڪار 1954ع ۾ نظام الدين کي هٽائي غلام محمد بوگره کي وزيراعظم ڪيو، بوگره جي خواهش هئي ته ”ون يونٽ“ جو اعلان سندس قلم سان ٿيڻ گهرجي. تنهن سنڌ جي چيف منسٽر محمد ايوب کهڙي کي ”پروڊا“ ايڪٽ تحت چئن سالن لاءِ نااهل ڪرائي ڇڏيو. ملڪ جي بچاءَ واري وزير ۽ فوجي سربراهه جنرل محمد ايوب خان اعلان ڪيو ته ون يونٽ ضرور ٺاهيو ويندو، کيس ڪنهن جي به مخالفت جي پرواهه ناهي. ان ڪم لاءِ خصوصي ٽاسڪ گورنر جنرل غلام محمد کي سونپيو ويو. سنڌ جي هارين، وڪيلن، شاگردن ۽ عورتن ان جي مخالفت شروع ڪئي. ڪجهه ليڊرن کانسواءِ سمورا چونڊيل عيوضي خاموش ۽ پنهنجي گهرن ۾ بند هيا.
    * 1954ع جي آخر ۾ سنڌ جي وڏي وزير پيرزاده عبدالستار کي ان اسڪيم لاءِ مڃائڻ جي ڪوشش ڪئي وئي، تنهن انڪار ڪيو. تنهن کي پروڊا هيٺ نااهل ڪرڻ جي ڌمڪي ڏني ويئي. ان ڌمڪي ڪم اهو ڪيو جو ايوب کهڙي جڏهن ون يونٽ جي حامي ڀري ته کيس بحال ڪيو ويو. کيس مرڪزي ڪابينا ۾ کنيو ويو، ون يونٽ کانپوءِ کيس ڪرپشن جي الزام ۾ هٽايو ويو.
    * 18 نومبر 1954ع سازشن جي مها پير، پير علي محمد راشدي هڪ پريس ڪانفرنس ۾“ ون يونٽ ٺاهڻ جي ڳالهه ۽ حمايت ڪئي ۽ چيو ته جيڪو به ان جي مخالفت ڪندو تنهن کي سختيءَ سان منهن ڏنو ويندو. چئن ڏينهن کانپوءِ بوگره سنڌ ۾ اچي سياستدانن سان ملاقات ڪئي. ڪنهن به بحث ڪرڻ جي اجازت نه هئي. سڀ ميمبر چُپ رهيا. شام جو هن ريڊيو پاڪستان تا خطاب ڪندي چيو ته ”ون يونٽ تي عمل ڪيو ويندو“
    گورنر جنرل کي ان سلسلي ۾ سنڌ کان ڪابه پريشاني نه هئي. سڀ کان اول ”خيرپور رياست“ پاران ون يونٽ جي حمايت جو اعلان ڪيو ويو. بهاولپور به دير نه ڪئي. پنجاب ۾ ته ماحول ٺهيل هو. سرحد ۾ ٿوري بحث کانپوءِ ان جي حمايت ۾ اعلان ڪيو ويو. غلام محمد کي سنڌ اسيمبلي مان ٿوري ڳڻتي هئي. ڇو ته 22 نومبر تي بوگره پاران اعلان ڪرڻ کانپوءِ سنڌ ۾ احتجاج شروع ٿي چُڪو هو. سنڌي ماڻهن کي احساس هيو ته ون يونٽ جو مقصد ڇا آهي؟ ان جي وسيلن سان ڇا ڇا ٿيندو. ان جي پورٽ، اڻ کنيل وسيلن ، اڻ ورهايل وسيلن سان ڇا ڇا ٿيندو؟ سنڌي ادبي سنگت، هاري حقدار تحريڪ، جي ايم سيد، غلام محمد ڀرڳڙي وغيره ان جي خلاف هئا پر اسيمبلين جا اڪثر ميمبر منهن لڪائي سرڪاري حفاظت ۾ گهمندا رهيا. الوحيد، نجم الدين سريوال جي اخبار ڪاروان ، ننڍا وڏا رسالا، اخبارون بند ڪيا ويا. ايوب کهڙي سمورن سان منهن ڏيئي پئي سگهيو پر هڪ وڏي آواز غلام مصطفي ڀرڳڙي جنهن کي گرفتار ڪرڻ لاءِ وٽس ڪوبه بهانو نه هو، تنهن کي نه مڃائي سگهيو.
    * آغا غلام نبي پٺاڻ کي حيدرآباد جي هوٽل مان گرفتار ڪيو ويو، سنڌ جي اسپيڪر مير غلام علي ٽالپر کي مٺي ٿاڻي تي داخل ڪيس جي بهاني گرفتار ڪري کيس اُٺ تي چاڙهي اوڏانهن موڪليو ويو.
    * ايوب کهڙي سنڌ اسيمبلي جو اجلاس ڪراچي بدران حيدرآباد جي ”درٻار هال“ ۾ سڏايو. 11 آڪٽوبر 1955ع سنڌ جي تاريخ جو اونداهون ڏينهن ، سنڌ اسيمبلي اجلاس سان شروع ٿيو. ان ڏينهن تي سنڌ جي چونڊيل اسيمبلي ميمبرن پنهنجي مرضي ۽ خواهش خلاف ڪم ڪيو، سنڌ جي خودمختياري جو سودو ڪيو ۽ پنهنجي وسيلن جي مالڪي ٻين جي حوالي ڪري پاڻ 1100 ڪلوميٽر پنڌ تان حڪمراني پسند ڪئي.
    * سيشن شروع ٿيو. ميمبرن کي خبر نه هئي ته ڇا ٿيندو؟ ڪنهن سان ڪهڙو ورتاءُ ڪيو ويندو؟ ڪهڙو موقف رکڻ گهرجي؟ مير غلام علي ٽالپر جيئن ئي سيشن ڪورٽ ۾ اندر موجود درٻار هال ۾ داخل ٿيڻ لاءِ پهچايو ويو ته اتي موجود پوليس جا دستا کيس کنڀي کڻي ويا. اجلاس ۾ محمد علي ڄاموٽ، مير علي احمد ٽالپر، قاضي محمد اڪبر، پير علي محمد راشدي، جمال خان لغاري، بيگم طاهره آغا ۽ ٻين ون يونٽ بل تي ڳالهايو.
    * سنڌ اسيمبلي جي 110 ميمبرن مان اٺ ڄڻا يا ته غير حاضر هئا يا جيلن ۾ هئا ، چئن ڄڻن مخالفت ۽ 98 ڄڻن حمايت ۾ ووٽ ڏنو. بهاولپور، سرحد، پنجاب مڪمل حمايت ڪئي. بلوچستان ۾ اسيمبلي ئي ڪانه هئي تنهن ڪري خان آف قلات جي حمايت لازم هئي. 14 آڪٽوبر 1955ع تي ون يونٽ قائم ڪيو ويو. 15 سالن کانپوءِ ملڪ جو اڌ وڃائڻ کانپوءِ فوج جي سربراهه جنرل يحييٰ خان ان ون يونٽ جي خاتمي جو اعلان ڪندي چيو هو ته ” اهو فيصلو غلط هو“ اها ڪالهوڻي ڳالهه آهي، جي ڪالاباغ ڊيم جي حمايت ۾ نثار ميمڻ جي دروازي تي ۽ ارباب رحيم جي چيف منسٽر هائوس ٻاهران ڪارا توا ٽنگي نفرت جو اظهار ڪيو ويو هيو ته سنڌي عوام اڄ ان اسڪيم جي حامي ايم پي ايز ، وزيرن، صلاحڪارن خلاف سنڌي ماڻهو ڪهڙا جذبا رکي سگهن ٿا؟
    ون يونٽ جي ڏنل ان سڄي ڪارروائي کانپوءِ رڳو سال بدلائجن، نالا بدلائجن، ته سنڌ اسيمبلي جا ميمبر تاريخ ۾ پنهنجو ڪهڙو نالو لکائيندا؟ سڀاڻي اهي سمورا ڪم ٿيڻ کانپوءِ سندن سرڪار هلي وڃي ته ماڻهن کي ڇا چوندا ته ” اسان جي سرڪار غداري جي ڪري وئي يا اسان سنڌين جا سڄڻ هئاسين ان ڪري نيڪالي ڏني ويئي؟“ ايوب کهڙي کي به ته غداري کانپوءِ ايوب خان ڪڍي ڇڏيو هو. وري سنڌ جي تاريخ ۽ اليڪشني ماحول ۾ ايوب کهڙو ۽ پير علي محمد راشدي ڪٿي به نظر نه آيا هئا. ڪرسي وڏي شيءِ ناهي، سنڌ وڏي شي آهي. ڪالهه واري فيصلي کانپوءِ ، سيپٽمبر ۾ جڏهن بلاول ڀٽو سنڌ ۾ سياست ڪرڻ ايندو ته هو ان فيصلي لاءِ ڇا چوندو؟ جي سنڌ جي وحدت جو خاتمو ”مفاهمت“ جو نتيجو آهي ته اهڙي مفاهمت سنڌي ماڻهن لاءِ ڇا کڻي آئي آهي؟.

  • Very well written post by a US scholar. Mr. Walker has hit the nail on its head when he identifies the core problem:

    “The problem occurs when a military and its security apparatus (ISI) is not accountable to civil government.”

  • “the tendency of social chatter all too frequently is to attempt to discredit the PPP.”

    Not only the PPP, the social chatterers also known as urban elite pose themselves as apolitical, in other words they feel free to criticize and undermine all political parties and the democratic process while remaining selective silent on the military state and its atrocities against its own people.

  • Pak-U.S. relationship has dipped to its lowest in history and it is all because of the mistrust being spread. Perhaps an effort on the grass root level, i.e. through citizen interaction; will bring the two countries together.

  • Mr. Walker, this is truly an interesting article & looking fwd to reading the rest. I agree with you that Pakistan needs to take responsibility for its acts. The reaction to Aatish Taseer’s honest analysis revealed the lack of moral spine amongst our FCS and these people will never come to your support.

  • Hamzo Ali Zardari – Sir, would you kndly offer me the courtesy of briefly explaining why you have copied and pasted articles in Sindhi in comments here? You need not translate it, I just wondered about your basic point, sir. Thank you.

  • Editor’s Note. The Imposter has misused Hamzao’s name to use foul words against Mr Rusty Walker, his comments deleted due to using foul language. The avatar (green block) of the offender is different to the one used by Hamzo in previous
    comments in the same thread.

    The Imposter’s IP Address is
    217.165.130.141

  • I think the root cause of the identity crisis in Pakistan lies with the unresolved theoretical ideological issues relating to Muslim Civilization and tradition. Whether it was Western Colonialism and the modern education system that it brought with it; causing the destruction of the civilizational processes of sub-continent, to stop giving importance to ‘thought development’ in favor of ‘emotional sloganism’ and bigotry, or it was due to the internal downfall of this civilization which paved the way for colonial powers to establish themselves here in the first place, besides the continuous tempering in the internal affairs by Western powers, it is the confusion over how to connect with the civilizational past in Modern times which is leading the Pakistani society towards chaos and destruction.