Islamabad-- I was giving a talk this afternoon at the Institute for Policy Studies here, which is affiliated to the Jamaat-i Islami. There were two American journalist friends there, both of whom left early. I figured they had another appointment. After my talk during the reception my hosts told me that a prominent Pakistani politician was calling -- someone I know (I'm not giving the name here). We were talking when my interlocutor mentioned that he (Musharraf) had amended the Army Act to apply to civilians. I asked if that meant he would do it if he declared emergency. Came the reply, He has declared emergency!
He did it during my talk. At lunch today another prominent political figure here was very concerned. This man is a leader of the president's own party, but he was in a minority -- he had told the President that declaring an Emergency would be a mistake. Today's Pakistan would not tolerate military rule.
One of my hosts is from Mardan in the Northwest Frontier Province. He reported that "militants" in the area had threatened to suicide-bomb the girls' school his cousin attends if they did not all wear burqas instead of their traditional parda (hijab). The poor families cannot even afford the burqa, but they are afraid. The local people do not know where these "Taliban" are coming from. They consider them extremists -- and these are people who voted for the Islamist parties in the elections five years ago....
So far it looks like the Army has kept the politicians out of Islamabad by arranging for PIA to go on strike on Friday, when they are all in their constituencies. So far it is calm. I'll report as I can.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
The wag will say that the nation has never left the state of emergency, but that is just being silly.
We now have a legal
State of Emergency in Pakistan. Actually, it is officially being called "Emergency Plus" - more than "Emergency" but less than "Martial Law". Just right.
The move is hardly surprising considering the chaos engulfing Pakistan at the moment - from political (Supreme Court deliberations on the fate of the "election") to military (the tribal/militant conflict has spread to Swat and Peshawar) to ideological (Baluchistan) to international (Rice has decided she wants democracy).
According to the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO)
declaring emergency, the steps were taken because of the recent terrorist attacks, the release of terror-suspects by the judiciary, the lack of oversight of the judiciary and the low morale of police and army in the nation. See the text
here .
moreSaturday, November 3, 2007
I'm watching Musharraf speaking in Urdu on television. I can't understand everything he is saying, but the gist of it seems to be that as a responsible president he has been caught between two extremist forces: Islamic militants and the judiciary. Apparently the rise of Islamic militancy in Pakistan is due to the irresponsibility of the judiciary, which has demoralized the armed forces and the forces of law and order.
Judging from my brief unscientific survey, this argument is not likely to play well (or at all) with the public. Musharraf has shut down cable TV and international news channels. But this is Pakistan's first post-mobile phone and post-internet coup. Musharraf may be in for a surprise.
Now he is speaking in English, telling us foreigners that Pakistan is on the verge of destabilization. Somehow people have been doing this behind the back of the president. He is taking this action to prevent Pakistan from committing suicide and to preserve the democratic transition. He says that the third and final stage of his democratic transition (election of new legislatures, his serving as a civilian president if elected) is being subverted.
To us critics and idealists he says, don't demand the level of democracy that you learned over centuries. Please don't demand or respect your level of civil rights and human rights. We are trying to learn. Please give us time. Now he is reading from Abraham Lincoln, whose supreme passion was maintaining the Union. He is portraying Lincoln as a ruthless dictator who broke all laws for the sake of the state. "Was it possible to lose the nation and yet preserve the constitution?" A limb may be amputated to save a life, but a life should not be given to save a limb. He is making the argument from necessity to preserve the nation.
more
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
