Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
An editorial in the TOI.
Musharraf's The Man
Given Pakistan's history, Pervez Musharraf might be the only man who can save that country. Here's the case for him.
Pakistan's descent into radicalism began on March 12, 1949, when the Constituent Assembly passed its Objectives Resolution declaring Pakistan an Islamic state.
This surprised its Hindu members (Bengalis from East Pakistan) who had been assured publicly by Jinnah that the new nation would be indifferent to religion.
Jinnah's deputy, Liaquat Ali Khan, tabled the resolution's Islamic provisions and won the vote by a majority of 21 to 10.
All who voted against it were Hindu. Liaquat assured the Hindus that Islamic state did not mean that only Muslims could
hold high political office.
The 1956 Constitution that this Objectives Resolution produced demanded that the state enact laws in accordance with Shariah. It also ruled that only a Muslim could be president.
All governments of Pakistan took this seriously and produced one Islamic law after another till Nawaz Sharif tried to push through his 15th amendment, which would have brought in Taliban law.
That Bill passed the lower House before floundering in the Senate where the MQM voted against it. Pakistan had earlier killed religious freedom in 1974 when its parliament passed a unanimous law banning members of the Ahmadiyya sect from referring to themselves as Muslim.
This law still exists, and is supported vocally by the ulema. The law was tabled by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who also brought prohibition to Pakistan.
The radicalisation of Pakistan has happened under democrats from Liaquat to Sharif. The only military ruler in Pakistan who Islamised society further was Zia-ul-Haq, who passed the Hudood, Qisas and Diyat laws.
Under one of them, a man may get away with killing his wife if her family accepts blood money or pardon. In another, women who were raped and could not prove that they were, would then be punished for adultery.
This law was overturned by Musharraf two months ago, in the face of opposition from conservative Muslims, Sharif's party and the ulema.
Earlier, Musharraf retreated from attempting to reform the blasphemy law. Under this, anybody who denigrates Prophet Muhammad (or converts out of Islam) is seen as an apostate whose life is forfeited. Musharraf retreated because he got no support from political parties though Benazir Bhutto's PPP supported the women's law Bill.
In December 1999, the supreme court of Pakistan abolished interest under an Islamic provision called riba. Musharraf had to rig the court and get rid of its hardline judges before the judgment could be put into cold storage, and that was done amid howling opposition from the Urdu papers.
Last year he stopped Lahore high court from banning kite flying because it was 'un-Islamic'. Today, kite flying is permitted in Lahore only for two weeks of the year and only under licence from the state government.
The majority of Pakistanis today despise Musharraf, as correctly pointed in an article ('Musharraf's Gamble', Feb 8).
This is principally because of his unpopular position on the war on terror. His attempt to bring an intellectual renaissance in Islam is laughed at in the Urdu papers.
Pakistanis want their state to confront America, no matter what that means for them internally and externally.
Their retired generals write in newspapers that Pakistan should stand by the Taliban and wage war on America. No politician, who by definition is a creature of popular opinion, can resist this.
Pakistan's popular jehad in Kashmir was waged by its army, but during the reign of Benazir and Sharif. Today, militancy related deaths in Kashmir are down to three a day from 10 a day five years ago.
Terrorism related violence in India has been dropping every year since Musharraf made his U-turn on Kashmir in a February 2002 speech following the Parliament attack. From 3,401 incidents in 2003, the figure dropped to 1,415
in 2005 and further in 2006.
Musharraf, the general who gave us Kargil, has been true to his word on containing cross-border terrorism.
For his position on Kashmir and Afghanistan, he has faced three attacks including a suicide bombing that nearly took him out.
His enemies today are the same extremists that the Pakistan army nurtured first against the Russians and then against India in Kashmir.
But they are angry with him because he has parted ways with them, not because, as Brahma Chellaney proposes, he is on their side.
He sacked or sidelined three of his closest associates from the 1999 coup - Muzaffar Hussain Usmani, Mahmoud Ahmed and
Mohammed Aziz Khan - because they could not forswear jehad.
It is true also that the Pakistan army has trained militias that terrorised India. But Musharraf and the army remain
India's best chance of now keeping these in check.
Musharraf's Kashmir proposals should be considered strongly by India, especially because they do not change borders
but open them up, and, most importantly, they abandon the UN resolutions and move away from a religious solution.
The secularisation of the state is not possible in Pakistan democratically, especially in an atmosphere where Muslims are convinced that the West is waging war on Islam.
"Apres moi, le'deluge", said another monarch once. In Musharraf's case it's probably true.
The writer is a former newspaper editor.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/OPINION/Editorial/Musharrafs_The_Man/articleshow/1623695.cms
totally agree with you rahman bhai:army: 
