DEMOCRACY is an obsession with the West. Perhaps, rightly so because after the failure of communism and socialism, democracy has emerged as the only successful form of government.

However, when one looks around in the Third World which is experimenting with democracy, one sees an unacceptable manifestation of the same — a democratically elected government is in place but taking the country towards disaster. Therefore, clearly, politics/democracy needs to be reconciled with national security — progress/development of the state and welfare/wellbeing of its people.

What are the imperatives of democracy? Are fair elections and an elected government the only requirement of democracy? To me, that is merely a label. How the elected government governs is the true essence of democracy. Democracy’s primary functional concern ought to be: ‘Are people masters of their own destiny? Are they empowered enough to look after their own interests?’

People implies masses belonging to all segments: vertically, the rich and powerful, feudal lords, tribal chiefs on top and the grass-roots common man at the bottom; horizontally, all provinces/states, tribes, religions, sects, castes, men and women.

I strongly believe the danger lies in denying power, not in sharing or giving power.

How does national security affect democracy? First and foremost is security against external threats implying the maintainance of adequate forces to pursue national interests with honour and dignity. Clearly, no state, no democracy.

This is the ‘traditional security element’. Pakistan has suffered from an existential threat from the east since independence, after its first war with India in 1948. Therefore, for its security, it adopted a military strategy of minimum defensive deterrence quantified into force levels for the army, navy and air force.

But when the armed forces, well-organised and well-managed as they are, also become strong in numbers, they tend to acquire a voice in national governance.

Next is security from internal threats or centrifugal forces acting against national security, homogeneity or integrity from within society. This is the ‘non-traditional security’ aspect; its various elements which are confronted for functional democracy to evolve are ethnic, tribal, religious or sectarian disparities and discord; regional or societal development inequities; poverty, joblessness and economic disparities; illiteracy; food and water issues.

Let’s discuss how to ensure national security to protect the state in all its dimensions and tailor democracy to suit a typical Third World environment. I will quote examples from my practical experience.

The people’s destiny must be entwined with that of the state so that they develop a stake in it. This is possible when the state rises economically and its wealth is distributed equitably among all regions and peoples.

With the economy put on the upsurge, we have to ensure its benefits trickle down to the people. In Pakistan we identified poverty and joblessness among the rural uneducated, the urban educated unemployed and the urban uneducated unemployed. We tackled each systematically.

For the rural uneducated unemployed, we focused on agriculture and agro-based industry, dairy and livestock. For the urban educated unemployed, we focused on the telecommunication and information technology sectors. For the urban uneducated unemployed, we emphasised building and construction which is labour-intensive. We reduced poverty from 34 to 17 per cent in seven years.

Education and skill development needs to be pursued vigorously. Public-private partnerships can pay rich dividends. We created the National Commission on Human Development; the National Vocational and Technical Education Commission was created for skill development which in turn led to innumerable vocational training centres imparting three- to six-month turnaround courses for construction skills. The overall strategy was for universalising education up to middle class and then diverting the people towards skill development.

Food, water and energy should be considered as the inalienable right of all. Sixty per cent of diseases in Pakistan are water-borne. We initiated a project of installing water-filtration plants down to the union council (15 to 20 villages) level. Electricity was provided to all villages with more than 50 houses. Simple food kitchens for the poorest segments need to be provided with public-private philanthropic participation.

These are the main areas of human security as part of non-traditional security which will reinforce national security and enhance the people’s stakes in the state. This brings me to the aspect of sustainable democracy.

First and foremost, democracy must be tailored to fit the environment in which it is to function. There is no set formula. No country’s example can be superimposed on others without adjustment.

In Pakistan, democratic institutions are under-developed, and democratically elected governments have always failed to deliver. Whenever there has been a dysfunctional, elected government running the state aground (which invariably has been the case), people take the only recourse of appealing to the army to take over. The army’s response to this mass national appeal can only be unconstitutional. There is no constitutional salvation.

In such a crisis, which has struck all too often, the question that gets debated is whether upholding democracy is more important than rescuing the state. An institutional role, therefore, has to be evolved for the military to voice its concerns to prevent any unconstitutional act, which the public pressurises them to do.

This I call checks and balances.

The other important factor is the empowerment of the people. We must devolve authority to the lowest level — empowerment and authority devolution to the district level and below means giving them political, administrative and financial authority.

Empowering the people is inadequate if women and minorities are not integrated into governance. They must appropriately be represented at all tiers of political authority so that they feel the satisfaction of belonging and participating in nation-building. We empowered women and minorities by giving them reserved seats in the district, provincial and national assemblies besides their right to contest openly from any constituency.

The ultimate factor behind all development of the state, welfare of its people, the country’s unity and integrity is collective economic wellbeing. Economic strength is the mother of all development and the guarantor of national security and sustainable democracy.

The writer is a former military ruler of Pakistan

It is not correct to say that the Energy Sector was neglected during my tenure. Energy Sector was given the high priority it warranted. Facts which are visible on ground are being distorted or misinterpreted, either on purpose or due to lack of knowledge. Some pertinent details are given below for your reference: Till 2002 we were surplus in electricity by up to 1,200 MW due to poor economic conditions and negligible development in Pakistan throughout the 90’s. Under contractual obligations, we had to pay through our nose to IPPs for this excess power that we could not utilize. From 2002 onwards our industry grew in double figures at about 15% annually.

There was tremendous economic/commercial activity and about 125,000 villages were electrified in 6 years (as opposed to the 1,500 villages per year in the past). All this growth put pressure on our electricity generation capacity. However alongside this demand surge, total generation capacity between 2002 and 2007 was increased by about 3,700MW. This was the reason why despite development, power shortages and loadsheding were unknown until late 2007. This was no mean achievement. I agree that we should have moved even faster to keep pace with the unprecedented upsurge in economy and rapid industrialization in the country. However we need to understand that the installation of generation capacity has to be balanced with the actual demand of the users. Otherwise, the imbalance places a heavy and avoidable pressure on the exchequer which has to pay power producers for their idle capacity.

The demand by 2008 had grown unprecedentedly by 5,000MW. Therefore we suffered a total shortfall of about 1,300MW in spite of the additional 3,700MW that were added to the national grid. We initiated projects to meet even this shortfall that are coming on line now (Chichonkimalian-450MW, Nandipur-450MW, Chashma Power Plant-350MW). Today, the main problem being faced by the public is not due to deficiency of power but an inability to utilise 18,000MW of existing electricity production capacity. This is due to reduction in industrial/commercial activity and a circular debt problem whereby the power generators have reduced generation for not having their bills paid.

It is indeed my regret that Kalabagh dam could not be started. I and my team tried our level best to take both the provinces of NWFP and Sindh along towards agreeing to construct Kalabagh. I spoke out in public gatherings and all my media interactions in order to evolve a consensus in support for the Kalabagh Dam. I constituted a political committee (headed by Mr. Nisar Memon), and a high powered Technical Committee comprising experts in this field from all the provinces under the Chairmanship of an expert of high standing (Mr. ANG Abbassi). The Planning Commission kept adequate allocation to commence construction of the Kalabagh Dam in the PSDP. Unfortunately the project was so misunderstood, politicized and riddled with suspicions, particularly in Sindh, that all political leaders became vehemently against it. Inaction was on account of advice of political leaders. We however did initiate the Bhasha Dam, which is a reasonable substitute.

The world is passing through a tumultuous period ever since the dawn of the 1990s, with no signs of relenting. The suffering of the innocent multitudes, particularly my brethren in faith – the Muslims – at the hands of militants, extremists, terrorists, has inspired me to contribute towards bringing some order to this disorderly world. It was this very urge which led me to expound the strategy of Enlightened Moderation.

The world has become an extremely dangerous place to live in. The devastating power of plastic explosives, combined with hi-tech, remotely controlled activation means superimposed by a proliferation of suicide bombers becomes a lethal combination beyond any effective counter. The unfortunate reality is that both, the perpetrators of the crime as well as most of the sufferers from it are Muslims. This has inevitably made non-Muslims believe, though wrongfully, that Islam is a religion of intolerance, militancy and terrorism. This thesis is rapidly evolving across the globe: connecting Islam to fundamentalism, fundamentalism to extremism and extremism to terrorism. We can protest, however vigorously, against this labeling, but the reality is that such arguments are not likely to win this formidable battle of minds against us. To compound our apathy further, we are probably the poorest, most uneducated, most powerless and the most disunited in the world.

The stark reality that faces anyone with compassion for this common heritage of mankind – our world, mother earth – is, what legacy we want to leave for our future generations? On the other side, the challenge that confronts the Muslims is to drag ourselves out of the pit we find ourselves in, through individual exaltation and collective socio-economic emancipation. Something has to be done quickly to stop this carnage in the world and for the Muslims to stem the downward slide, if we are to prevent ourselves from being marginalized.

My idea for untangling this Gordian Knot is the strategy of Enlightened Moderation which I think is a win for all – the Muslim and the Non Muslim World. This is a two-pronged strategy. One part to be delivered by the Muslim World is to shun militancy, extremism and adopting the path of socio-economic uplift. The other part to be delivered by the West, and the US in particular, must aim at resolutely resolving all political disputes with justice and also assisting in the socio-economic uplift of the deprived Muslim World. I would like to explain the logic of the strategy of Enlightened Moderation and also elaborate further on the methodology for the Muslim World to execute its prong of the strategy. First of all we need to understand that the root cause of extremism and militancy lies in political injustice, denial and deprivation. Political injustice to a nation or a people when combined with stark poverty and illiteracy makes the explosive mix leading towards an acute sense of deprivation, hopelessness and powerlessness. A people suffering from a combination of all these lethal ills are easily available cannon fodder for the propagation of militancy and the perpetration of extremist, terrorist acts. I would be remiss if, in defence of the people of my faith, I did not trace back the genesis of the Muslims getting labeled with the extremist – terrorist tag. Before the anti Soviet, Afghan War started, the Palestine dispute alone was the cause of unrest or concern in the Muslim World which led to a general unification of Muslims in favour of Palestinians AND against Israel. The Afghan war of 80’s, supported and facilitated by the West, as a proxy war against the Soviet Union, saw the emergence and nurturing of pan Islamic militancy. Islam as a religion was used to harness mass, world-wide Muslim support. Subsequently, the atrocities and ethnic cleansing against Muslims in Bosnia, the Chechen uprising, Kashmir freedom struggle and invigorated Palestinian Intifada all erupted in the 90’s after the Soviet disintegration. To make matters worse the militancy sparked in Afghanistan which needed to be defused after the end of the Cold War, was allowed to fester for the whole decade of 90’s. This festering wound of Afghanistan with fighters from the entire Muslim World existing within the period of upheaval in other Muslim nations turned multidirectional, looking for new conflict zones where Muslims were suffering. This saw the birth of Al-Qaeda. All this happened while the Palestinian Intifada kept gathering momentum, uniting and angering Muslims across the globe. Then came the bombshell of the horror of 9/11 and the angry reaction of US against Taliban/Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. All subsequent reactions of the US, their domestic responses against Muslims, their attitude towards Palestine and operation in Iraq led to total polarization of the Muslim masses against the US. Why this needs to be recapitulated is to prove that it is not Islam as a religion which preaches or infuses militancy and extremism but the political disputes which led to antagonism in the Muslim masses.

This all is history now. What has been done cannot be undone. But this situation cannot be allowed to fester. For the sake of universal harmony, a remedy has to be found. The cry of the day is for the West to resolve the political disputes enumerated above with justice as their part of the commitment to the strategy of Enlightened Moderation.

I would now like to turn to the Muslim World, for whom my heart weeps. What we need today is self-introspection. Who are we, what do we as Muslims stand for, where are we going, where should we be headed and how can we reach there? The answers to all these questions, I see as the Muslim prong of the strategy of enlightened Moderation.

We have had a glorious past. Islam exploded on the world scene as flag bearer of a just, lawful, tolerant and value oriented society. We had faith in human exaltation through knowledge and enlightenment. We exemplified tolerance within ourselves and with people of other faiths. The Armies of Islam did not march forward to convert people to Islam through the sword, despite what perceptions may be, but to deliver them from the darkness they were under, through the visible example of their virtues. What better projection can be found of these deeper values of Islam than the personal example of our Holy Prophet (PBUH) who personified justice, compassion, tolerance of others, generosity of spirit, austerity with a spirit of sacrifice, and a burning desire for raising humanity to a better world.The Muslim World today is distant from all these values. We have been left far behind in social, moral and economic development. Unfortunately during our decline we remained in our own shell and refused to learn or acquire from others. We thus reached the present depths of despair and despondency. We need to face stark realities. Is the way ahead one of confrontation and militancy? Will this path lead us to our past glory and also show the light of progress and development to the world? My brother Muslims, the time for renaissance has come. The way forward is to head towards enlightenment and concentrate on human resource development through poverty alleviation, education, health and social justice. If this be our direction, it cannot be achieved through a confrontationist approach. We have to adopt the path of moderation and a conciliatory approach to wash off the common belief that Islam is a religion of militancy and is also in conflict with modernization, democracy and secularism. All this has to be done with a realization that, in the world we live in, the doctrine of fairness is not always available to us. This is our prong of the strategy of Enlightened Moderation which we need to deliver.

If this be the strategic course to be adopted by the Muslim World, what are the operational parameters to be executed? The OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) is our collective body. We need to infuse life into this body which at present is in a state of near impotence. It has to be restructured to meet the challenges of the 21st century, fulfill the aspirations of the Muslim World and take us towards our emancipation. The committee of eminent persons being formed to recommend a restructured OIC is indeed a big step towards the right direction. We have to show resolve, rise above self interests for our joint, common good in the very spirit that Islam teaches us.

The world at large and the powers that be, must realize that confrontation and use of force is no more the option available to bring ultimate peace. Justice must be done and be seen to be done. Let it not be said by our future generations that we, the leaders of today took humanity towards apocalypse.

10 Questions for Pervez Musharraf

By TIME Staff Thursday, Mar. 24, 2011

You are planning a return to Pakistan to run again for President, a job you left in 2008. Why?

For the sake of Pakistan. I am very comfortable. I go around the world lecturing, and they pay me well. But there is a cause bigger than the self. I governed the country for nine years — successfully. So I don’t have to reinvent the wheel. And I know Pakistan is suffering. I know there is a vacuum of leadership. Therefore the cause of Pakistan pulls me toward my destiny. Maybe it’s a call of destiny much more for the nation than for myself.

You stepped down at the behest of the people. We’ve also seen Tunisia’s Zine el Abidine Ben Ali and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak step down at the people’s demand. How would you advise Muammar Gaddafi?
I would like to seriously object to the comparison. I left peacefully through my own volition. So please don’t compare me to those two. However, you have spoken about Gaddafi. The will of the people should reign supreme. It’s almost a civil war there. A political situation must be found.

Do you see any good leadership in Pakistan that will shift the country from the grip of religious extremists?

That is why I want to go back.

So how do you combat the rise of the religious right?
You have two choices: succumb to circumstances or do something. I know the people of Pakistan are moderate. It’s unfortunate when the government itself and the leadership appease the religious groups and extremists by turning a blind eye.

Which is more of a threat to Pakistan — extremism or India?
At the moment, it’s extremism and terrorism. But you can’t compare. Let’s not think this is a permanent situation. The orientation of 90% of Indian troops is against Pakistan. We cannot ever ignore India, which poses an existential threat to Pakistan.

Is Pakistan the most dangerous country in the world?
It is very dangerous, yes, I will have to admit. But the most dangerous is Afghanistan.

But Afghanistan doesn’t have nuclear weapons.
Yes, we have nuclear weapons, and we are proud of it. Nuclear weapons are the pride of every man, woman and child walking in the streets of Pakistan. Why are we nuclear?

Because of India.

What is preventing Pakistan from becoming the modern, progressive state you envisioned when you took power?
The condition of the region. In 1979 we launched a jihad in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Who was the spearhead of the fight? The religious militant groups. In effect we introduced religious militancy by design in Afghanistan, and then [the U.S.] left the place high and dry. The responsibility lies with the West. The U.S. encouraged it all, and we suffered. This is what we face. It comes from history.

But you can’t lay all the blame on history.
Yes, we have to take the lessons we have learned. We have to be careful not to create another blunder. The U.S. is declaring that it will quit in 2014. The Taliban are seeing that people are running away.

So the decision to pull out in 2014 is not a good one?
I know [what] public opinion is in the West and the U.S. But real leadership comes when you need to change public opinion, not go with it, because it’s not in your interest or the world’s interest. This is the reality in Afghanistan at this moment.

نائن الیون۔ کیا ہم کوئی دوسرا فیصلہ کرسکتے تھے؟

جنرل(ر) پرویز مشرف
پاکستان کا امریکہ اور اسکے اتحادیوں کا افغانستان میں طالبان کیخلاف حملے میں ساتھ دینا ایک بحث طلب معاملہ ہے۔یہ فیصلہ ہم نے جیو سٹرٹیجک حقائق کومکمل طورپر مدنظر رکھتے ہوئے کیا لیکن اس فیصلے پر تعریف اور تنقید دونوں کی جارہی ہیں۔ پاکستان میں دہشت گردی کے حالیہ واقعات کے بعد پاکستان کا نائن الیون کے حملوں کے بعد کا ردعمل زیادہ اہمیت اختیار کرگیا ہے۔اس لئے میں اپنا فرض سمجھتا ہوں کہ پاکستانی عوام کو تمام ضروری معلومات سے آگاہ کروں تاکہ وہ صورتحال کا بہتر طورپر ادراک کرسکیں۔ میری حکومت کا امریکہ کا ساتھ دینے کا فیصلہ درحقیقت میرے ماٹو ”سب سے پہلے پاکستان“ پر مبنی تھا۔ کچھ لوگوں نے مشورہ دیا کہ ہمیں امریکہ کی مخالفت کرتے ہوئے طالبان کاساتھ دیناچاہئے کیا یہ کسی بھی طرح پاکستان کے حق میں تھا؟ یقینی طورپر نہیں۔ اگر القاعدہ اور طالبان کو اس جنگ میں فتح ہوبھی جاتی تو بھی یہ پاکستان کے مفاد میں نہیں تھا کہ وہ طالبانائزیشن کو اختیارکرتا۔ طالبانائزیشن اختیار کرنے کا مطلب ہوتا کہ ہم ایک ایسے معاشرے میں رہ رہے ہیں جہاں خواتین کو کوئی حقوق حاصل نہیں، ا قلیتیں خوف کی حالت میں رہیں نیم پڑھے لکھے عالم انصاف کے رکھوالے بن جائیں ۔ میں اس قسم کی صورتحال کو پاکستان کیلئے کبھی بھی پسند نہ کرتا۔
فوجی نقطہ نظر سے یہ با ت واضح تھی کہ طالبان کو اس جنگ میں یقینی طورپر شکست ہوناہے اور پاکستان کیلئے یہ بہت نقصان دہ ہوتا کہ وہ ایک شکست خوردہ فریق کا ساتھ دیتا۔دنیا کی تنہا عالمی طاقت امریکہ نائن الیون کے حملے کے بعد زخمی اور شرمندہ ہوچکا تھا۔ افغانستان میں القاعدہ اور طالبان کیخلاف شدید ردعمل ناگزیر ہوچکا تھا۔ مجھے امریکہ کی طرف سے سخت لہجے میں پیغام دیا گیا کہ پاکستان کو یا تو ہمارا ساتھ دینا پڑے گا یا ہماری مخالفت کرنا پڑے گی۔ مجھے یہ پیغام بھی دیا گیا کہ اگر پاکستان نے امریکہ کی مخالفت کی تو اسے بمباری کے ذریعے پتھر کے دور میں پہنچا دیا جائے گا۔
یہ وہ صورتحال تھی جس میں ہمیں پاکستان کے حوالے سے انتہائی اہم فیصلہ کرنا تھا۔میری پوری توجہ اس بات پر مرکوز تھی کہ ایک ایسا فیصلہ کیاجائے جس سے پاکستان کو طویل المدتی فائدہ ہو اور وہ ہر قسم کے منفی اثرات سے بچارہے۔
امریکہ کے پاس افغانستان پر حملہ کرنے کیلئے کیا آپشن تھے؟ وہ شمال کی طرف سے ایسا نہیں کرسکتا تھا کیونکہ وہاں روس اور وسطی ایشیا کی ریاستیں موجود تھیں۔ وہ مغرب کی طرف سے ایران کے راستے سے بھی ایسا نہیں کرسکتا تھا۔ وہ صرف پاکستان کے ذریعے افغانستان پر حملہ کر سکتا تھا۔ اگر ہم راضی نہ ہوتے تو بھارت ایسا کرنے کیلئے تیار تھا۔ امریکہ اور بھارت کا اتحاد پاکستان کو روند کر افغانستان تک پہنچتا۔ ہماری فضائی اور زمینی حدود کی خلاف ورزی کی جاتی۔ کیاہم اپنی فوج کے ذریعے امریکہ اور بھارت کی مشترکہ قوت کا مقابلہ کرتے؟ بھارت ہماری طرف سے ایسے ردعمل پر بہت خوش ہوتا۔ یہ ایک مکمل طورپر بے وقوفانہ اور غیر عقلمندانہ ردعمل ہوتا۔ ہمیں اپنے سٹرٹیجک مفادات…. اپنی ایٹمی قوت اور کشمیر کے حوالے سے نقصان اٹھانا پڑتا۔ ہماری علاقائی خود مختاری بھی داﺅ پر لگ سکتی تھی۔
امریکہ اور مغرب سے ٹکراﺅ کے نتیجے میں اقتصادی صورتحال پر بھی سنجیدگی سے غور کرنے کی ضرورت ہے۔ پاکستان کی اہم برآمدات کا ذریعہ امریکہ اور یورپی یونین ہیں اور ہمارے ملک میں زیادہ سرمایہ کاری بھی وہیں سے ہوتی ہے۔ ہماری ٹیکسٹائل جو کہ ہماری برآمدات کا 60فیصد ہے وہ بھی یورپ کو برآمد کی جاتی ہیں۔ اس پرکسی بھی قسم کی پابندی سے ہماری صنعت کا گلا گھونٹا جاسکتا تھا۔ مزدوروں کی ملازمتیں کھو جاتیں۔ پاکستان کے غریب عوام کو اسی کا سب سے زیادہ نقصان ہوتا۔
ہمارے اہم ترین دوست چین کو بھی القاعدہ اور طالبان کیخلاف شدید تحفظات ہیں۔ چین میں مشرقی ترکستان اسلامک موومنٹ کی وجہ بھی افغانستان اور ہمارے قبائلی علاقوں کے واقعات ہیں۔ اگر ہم القاعدہ اور طالبان کا ساتھ دیتے تو چین بھی ہم سے خوش نہ ہوتا۔مسلم اُمہ بھی طالبان حکومت سے کوئی ہمدردی نہیں رکھتی تھی ترکی اور ایران طالبان کے سخت خلاف تھے۔ پاکستان کے علاوہ صرف متحدہ عرب امارات اور سعودی عرب نے طالبان حکومت کو تسلیم کیا تھا۔ لیکن وہ بھی طالبان سے اس قدر مایوس ہوئے تھے کہ انہوں نے کابل میں اپنے سفارتی مشن بند کردئیے تھے۔
یہاں میں یہ بات بھی واضح کرناچاہوں گا کہ ہم نے امریکہ کی جانب سے پیش کردہ تمام مطالبات تسلیم کرلئے تھے۔ 13ستمبر2001 کو پاکستان میں امریکی سفیر وینڈی چیمبر لین میرے پاس سات مطالبات لیکر آئیں یہ مطالبات امریکی وزارت خارجہ کی جانب سے ہمارے فارن آفس کو بھی بھجوائے گئے تھے۔ جو مندرجہ ذیل تھے۔
1۔ اپنی سرحدوں پر القاعدہ کے کارکنوں کی سرگرمیاں روکی جائیں پاکستان کے راستے ہتھیاروںکی سپلائی کو روکاجائے اور بن لادن کیلئے ہرقسم کی لاجسٹک سپورٹ کا خاتمہ کیاجائے۔
2۔ امریکہ کو تمام ضروری فوجی اور انٹیلی جنس آپریشنز کیلئے پروازوں اور لینڈنگ کے حقوق فراہم کئے جائیں۔
3۔ امریکہ اور اتحادی فوجی انٹیلی جنس کو ضرورت کے مطابق اور دیگر فوجیوں کو دہشت گردوں اور ان کے سرپرستوں کیخلاف تمام ضروری آپریشنز کرنے کیلئے زمینی رسائی فراہم کی جائے جس میں پاکستان کی نیول پورٹس، ائیر بیسز اور سرحدوں پر سٹرٹیجک لوکیشنز بھی شامل ہوں۔
4۔ امریکہ کو فوری طورپر ایسی تمام انٹیلی جنس امیگریشن انفارمیشن اور ڈیٹا بیسز اور داخلی سلامتی کے بارے میں اطلاعات فراہم کی جائیں جن سے امریکہ اس کے دوستوں اور اتحادیوں کیخلاف دہشت گردانہ سرگرمیوں کو روکنے اور ان کا جواب دینے میں مدد مل سکے۔
5۔11ستمبر کے دہشت گرد اقدامات اور امریکہ ،اسکے دوستوں اور اتحادیوں کیخلاف کسی بھی قسم کی دہشت گردی کی کھلے طور پر مذمت کا سلسلہ جاری رکھا جائے اور امریکہ ،اس کے دوستوں یا اسکے اتحادیوں کیخلاف دہشت گردی کی حمائت میں ہر قسم کے اظہار رائے کو روکاجائے۔
6۔ طالبان کو ایندھن اور دیگر اشیاءو ریکروٹس بشمول براستہ افغانستان ایسے رضا کاروں کی ترسیل کا سلسلہ منقطع کیاجائے جو فوجی حملے یا دہشت گردی میں مددگار کے طورپر استعمال کئے جاسکتے ہوں۔
7۔ اگر افغانستان میں اسامہ بن لادن اور القاعدہ نیٹ ورک کے سرگرم ہونے اور افغانستان کے طالبان کی جانب سے ان کی مدد کرنے کی ٹھوس شہادت ملے تو پاکستان طالبان حکومت سے سفارتی تعلقات توڑے گا اور طالبان کی حمائت ختم کردے گا اور اسامہ بن لادن اور القاعدہ نیٹ ورک کو بیان کردہ طریقوں کے مطابق تباہ کرنے میں امریکہ کی مدد کرے گا۔
ان میں بعض مطالبات مضحکہ خیز تھے جیسا کہ ایسے تمام داخلی اظہار رائے کا سدباب کیاجائے جس سے امریکہ اسکے دوستوں اور اتحادیوں کیخلاف دہشت گردی کی حمائت کا تاثر ملتا ہو بھلا میری حکومت عوامی اظہار رائے کو کیسے دبا سکتی تھی جبکہ میں اظہار رائے کی حوصلہ افزائی کیلئے کوشش کررہا تھا؟ میں نے یہ بھی سوچا کہ ہم سے یہ کہنا کہ افغانستان سے سفارتی تعلقات توڑ دئیے جائیں اگر وہ اسامہ بن لادن اور القاعدہ کی حمائت جاری رکھیں حقیقت پسندانہ نہیں کیونکہ افغانستان تک رسائی کیلئے نہ صرف امریکہ کو ہماری مدد کی ضرورت ہوگی کم سے کم طالبان حکومت کے خاتمہ تک۔ لیکن ایسے فیصلے کسی ملک کا داخلی معاملہ ہے اور کسی کی جانب سے اسے ڈکٹیٹ نہیں کیاجاسکتا تاہم دہشت گردی کو اس کی ہر شکل میں ختم کرنا ہمارے لئے کوئی مسئلہ نہیں تھا ہم امریکہ کے اس کا شکار ہونے سے پہلے ہی ایسا کرنے کی کوشش کررہے تھے۔
ہم دوسرا اور تیسرا مطالبہ تسلیم نہیں کرسکتے تھے ۔ہم امریکہ کو اپنی فضائی حدود میں کھلی پروازوں اور لینڈنگ کے حقوق اپنے سٹرٹیجک اثاثوں کو خطرے میں ڈا ل کر بھلا کیسے دے سکتے تھے؟ میں نے ایک کو ریڈور فراہم کرنے کی پیشکش کی جو ہمارے حساس علاقوں سے خاصے فاصلے پر تھا ہم امریکہ کو اپنی سرحدوں پر نیول پورٹس، ائیر بیسز اور سٹرٹیجک مقامات کے اعتدال کی اجازت بھی نہیں دے سکتے تھے ہم نے نیول پورٹس اور فائٹر طیارو ں کے اڈے دینے سے انکار کردیا ہم نے امریکہ کو بلوچستان میں شمسی اور سندھ میں جیک آباد کے دواڈوں کے صرف لاجسٹکس اور ائیر کرافٹ ریکوری کے استعمال کی اجازت دی ان اڈوں سے کوئی حملہ نہیں کیاجاسکتا تھا ہم نے کسی بھی مقصد کیلئے ” بلینکٹ پرمیشن“ نہیں دی۔
ہم باقی مطالبات پورے کرسکتے تھے اور مجھے خوشی ہے کہ امریکہ نے کسی اعتراض کے بغیر ہماری جوابی تجویز قبول کرلی۔ میں اپنے اوپر لگائے جانے والے اس الزام پر حیران ہوں کہ میں نے کولن پاول کی ایک فون کال پر امریکہ کی تمام شرائط مان لیں جبکہ انہوں نے مجھے کوئی شرائط پیش ہی نہیں کیں۔ یہ شرائط تیسرے روز امریکی سفیر لائی تھیں۔
میں نے اپنا فیصلہ کرنے کے بعد اسے کابینہ کے سامنے پیش کیا پھر میں نے سوسائٹی کے مختلف طبقوں سے ملاقاتیں شروع کیں18ستمبر اور3 اکتوبر کے درمیان میں نے دانشوروں ، ممتاز ایڈیٹروں ،کالم نگاروں، ماہرین تعلیم، قبائلی سرداروں، طلباءاور لیبر یونین کے رہنماﺅں سے ملاقاتیں کیں۔18اکتوبر کو میں نے چینی وفد سے بھی ملاقات کی اور فیصلے پر تبادلہ خیال کیا اس کے بعد میں ملک بھر کی فوجی چھاﺅنیوں میں گیا اور فوجیوں سے بات چیت کی اس طرح میں نے اپنے فیصلے پر وسیع اتفاق رائے پیدا کیا۔
یہ ان تمام ممکنہ نقصانات کا تجزیہ تھا جو ہمیں امریکہ کے خلاف فیصلہ کرنے کی صورت میں اٹھانے پڑتے اس طرح میں نے ان سماجی اقتصادی اور فوجی فوائد کا تجزیہ کیا جو مغرب سے اتحادی کے باعث ہمیں حاصل ہوسکتے تھے میں نے دانشمندی پر مبنی اپنے فیصلے کی تمام تفصیلات بیان کردی ہیں اور اب مجھے اپنے اس فیصلے پر کوئی پچھتاوا نہیں ہے پاکستان کے وسیع مفاد میں یہ درست فیصلہ تھا مجھے یقین ہے کہ پاکستانیوں کی اکثریت اس سے اتفاق کرے گی۔

Sporadic and superficial global support has made Pakistanis feel dangerously betrayed

The world is watching Pakistan, and rightly so. It’s a happening place. Pakistan is at the center of geostrategic revolution and realignments. The economic, social and political aspirations of China, Afghanistan, Iran, and India turn on securing peace, prosperity, and stability in Pakistan. Our country can be an agent of positive change, one that creates unique economic interdependencies between central, west and south Asian countries and the Middle East through trade and energy partnerships. Or there’s the other option: the borderless militancy Pakistan is battling could take down the whole region.

Recently, terrorists on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border have plotted, unsuccessfully, to unleash terror as far away as Copenhagen and New York City. Pakistan’s role in a safe, secure world cannot be overemphasized. To appreciate the complex history of Pakistan’s internal and external challenges is to understand how the 21st century could well play out for the world.

Our country was born of violence, in August 1947. Just months after the partition of the subcontinent and the creation of the Dominion of Pakistan, we were at war with India over Kashmir. Pakistan and India’s mutual animosity and history of confrontation remain powerful forces in South Asia to this day. Because of its sense of having been wronged by India—and feeling that it faced an existential threat from that country—Pakistan cast its lot with the West. We became a strategic partner of the U.S. during the Cold War, signing on to the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) in the 1950s, while India tilted toward the Soviet Union. As part of our inalienable right to self-preservation, we formulated a “minimum defensive deterrence” strategy to maintain Army, Navy and Air Force numbers at levels proportional to India’s.

In 1965 we again went to war over Kashmir, and in 1971 over East Pakistan (I fought in both). Our suspicions about India were proved right when it became clear that the creation of Bangladesh was only made possible through Indian military and intelligence support. Among Pakistanis in general, and the Army in particular, attitudes against India hardened. The adversarial relationship between our Inter Services Intelligence and their Research and Analysis Wing worsened, both exploiting any opportunity to inflict harm on the other.

India’s “Smiling Buddha” nuclear tests in 1974 changed everything. Pakistan was forced to resort to unconventional means to compensate for the new imbalance of power. Prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto initiated Pakistan’s atomic program, and thus began the nuclearization of the subcontinent. India’s pursuit of nuclear weapons was an effort to project power beyond its borders; Pakistan’s was an existential and defensive imperative.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 presented Pakistan with a security threat from two directions: Soviets to the west, who wanted access to the Indian Ocean through Pakistan, and Indians to the east. Once again Pakistan joined hands with the United States to fight Moscow.

We called it jihad by design, this effort to attract mujahideen from all over the Muslim world. And from Morocco to Indonesia, some 25,000 of them came. We trained and armed Taliban from the madrassahs of the then North West Frontier Province, and pushed them into Afghanistan. By this time, the liberal and intellectual Afghan elite had left for the safer climes of Europe and the U.S., leaving behind a largely poor, religious-minded population to fight the 10-year jihad. We—Pakistan, the U.S., the West, and Saudi Arabia—are equally responsible for nourishing the militancy that defeated the Soviet Union in 1989, and which seeks now to defeat us all.

The Soviets quit Kabul, and the Americans abandoned Islamabad. Washington rewarded its once indispensable ally by invoking the Pressler Amendment and imposing military sanctions, and by choosing to foster a strategic relationship with India. Pakistan was left alone to deal with the nearly 4 million Afghans who had streamed into our country and became the world’s largest refugee population. The people of Pakistan felt betrayed and used. For Pakistan, the decade of disaster had begun. No efforts were made to deprogram, rehabilitate, and resettle the mujahideen or redevelop and build back war-ravaged Afghanistan.

This shortsightedness led to ethnic fighting, warlordism, and Afghanistan’s dive into darkness.

The mujahideen coagulated into Al Qaeda. The Taliban, who would emerge as a force in 1996, eventually would occupy 90 percent of the country, ramming through their obscurantist medievalism. It was also in 1989 that the freedom struggle reignited in India-administered Kashmir. This started out as a purely indigenous and peaceful uprising against Indian state repression. The people who led this first intifada were radicalized by the Indian Army’s fierce and indiscriminate crackdowns on locals. The Kashmir cause is a rallying cry for Muslims around the world. It is more so for Pakistanis. The plight of Kashmiri Muslims inspired the creation of new mujahideen groups within Pakistan who then sent thousands of volunteer fighters to the troubled territory. In terms of identity politics, the boundaries were clearer: the mujahideen set their sights on India; Al Qaeda and the Taliban were focused largely on Afghanistan. With the Taliban to our west and the mujahideen in the north, this arc of anger rent our social fabric. Pakistan found itself awash in guns and drugs.

Nine years later, there was bad news from Pokhran. In May 1998, India again tested its bomb. Almost two weeks later, Pakistan responded by “turning the mountain white” at Chaghai. For Pakistanis, our own tests became a symbol of our power in the world, a testament to our resolve and innovation in the face of adversity, and a source of unmitigated pride in our streets. We became a nuclear power and an international pariah at the same time, but furthering and harnessing our nuclear potential remains and must remain our singular national interest. Of course, the U.S. views India’s nuclear program differently from Pakistan’s. Even our pursuit of nuclear power for civilian purposes, for electricity generation, is viewed negatively. India’s pursuit is assisted by the U.S. In Pakistan, people see this as yet another instance of American partiality, even hostility. Many even believe that the U.S. wants to denuclearize Pakistan—by force if necessary—because it fears the weapons could come into the hands of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or any of the myriad militant organizations who have loosed mayhem in Pakistan. Our nuclear weapons are secure.

Pakistan was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban government of Afghanistan. We did this because of our ethnic, historical, and geographical affinity with Afghan Pashtuns who comprised the Taliban. In 2000, when I led Pakistan, I had suggested to the U.S. and other countries that they, too, should recognize the Taliban government and collectively engage Kabul in order to achieve moderation there through exposure and exchange. This was shot down. Continued diplomatic isolation of the Taliban regime pushed it into the embrace of the Arab-peopled Al Qaeda. Had the Taliban government been recognized, the world could have saved the Bamiyan Buddhas, and unknotted the Osama bin Laden problem thereby preventing the spate of Al Qaeda-orchestrated attacks around the world including on September 11, 2001, in the U.S.

When America decided to retaliate, we joined the international coalition against Kabul by choice so we could safeguard and promote our own national interests. Nobody in Islamabad was in favor of the religious and governmental philosophy of the Taliban. By joining the coalition, we also prevented India from gaining an upper hand in Afghanistan from where it could then machinate against Pakistan. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were defeated in 2001 with the help of the Northern Alliance, which was composed of Uzbeks, Hazarans, and Tajiks—all ethnic minorities. The Pashtuns and Arabs of Afghanistan fled to the mountains and fanned out across Pakistan. This was the serious downside of joining the global coalition: the mujahideen who were fighting for Kashmir formed an unholy nexus with the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban—and turned their guns on us. While I was president, they made at least four attempts on my life.

In 2002, the allies installed a largely Pashtun-free government in Afghanistan that lacked legitimacy because it did not represent 50 percent of the Afghan population, Pashtuns. This should not have happened. All Taliban are Pashtun, but not all Pashtuns are Taliban. Pashtuns were thus isolated, blocked from the mainstream, and pushed toward the Taliban, who made a resurgence in 2004.

Today, the Taliban rule the roost in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are ensconced in our tribal agencies, plotting and launching attacks against us and others. The twin scourge of radicalism and militarism has infected settled districts of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and beyond. Mujahideen groups are operating in India-administered Kashmir and seem to have public support in Pakistan.

After nine long years, and a longer war for the U.S. than Vietnam, the world wants to negotiate with “moderate” elements in the Taliban—and from a position of apparent weakness. Before the coalition abandons Afghanistan again, it must at least ensure the election of a legitimate Pashtun-led government. Pakistan, which has lost at least 30,000 of its citizens in the war on terror, should be forgiven for wondering whether it was all worth it. Pakistanis should not be left to feel that it was not.

The writer is former president and army chief of Pakistan

DEMOCRACY is an obsession with the West. Perhaps, rightly so because after the failure of communism and socialism, democracy has emerged as the only successful form of government.

However, when one looks around in the Third World which is experimenting with democracy, one sees an unacceptable manifestation of the same — a democratically elected government is in place but taking the country towards disaster. Therefore, clearly, politics/democracy needs to be reconciled with national security — progress/development of the state and welfare/wellbeing of its people.

What are the imperatives of democracy? Are fair elections and an elected government the only requirement of democracy? To me, that is merely a label. How the elected government governs is the true essence of democracy. Democracy’s primary functional concern ought to be: ‘Are people masters of their own destiny? Are they empowered enough to look after their own interests?’

People implies masses belonging to all segments: vertically, the rich and powerful, feudal lords, tribal chiefs on top and the grass-roots common man at the bottom; horizontally, all provinces/states, tribes, religions, sects, castes, men and women.

I strongly believe the danger lies in denying power, not in sharing or giving power.

How does national security affect democracy? First and foremost is security against external threats implying the maintainance of adequate forces to pursue national interests with honour and dignity. Clearly, no state, no democracy.

This is the ‘traditional security element’. Pakistan has suffered from an existential threat from the east since independence, after its first war with India in 1948. Therefore, for its security, it adopted a military strategy of minimum defensive deterrence quantified into force levels for the army, navy and air force.

But when the armed forces, well-organised and well-managed as they are, also become strong in numbers, they tend to acquire a voice in national governance.

Next is security from internal threats or centrifugal forces acting against national security, homogeneity or integrity from within society. This is the ‘non-traditional security’ aspect; its various elements which are confronted for functional democracy to evolve are ethnic, tribal, religious or sectarian disparities and discord; regional or societal development inequities; poverty, joblessness and economic disparities; illiteracy; food and water issues.

Let’s discuss how to ensure national security to protect the state in all its dimensions and tailor democracy to suit a typical Third World environment. I will quote examples from my practical experience.

The people’s destiny must be entwined with that of the state so that they develop a stake in it. This is possible when the state rises economically and its wealth is distributed equitably among all regions and peoples.

With the economy put on the upsurge, we have to ensure its benefits trickle down to the people. In Pakistan we identified poverty and joblessness among the rural uneducated, the urban educated unemployed and the urban uneducated unemployed. We tackled each systematically.

For the rural uneducated unemployed, we focused on agriculture and agro-based industry, dairy and livestock. For the urban educated unemployed, we focused on the telecommunication and information technology sectors. For the urban uneducated unemployed, we emphasised building and construction which is labour-intensive. We reduced poverty from 34 to 17 per cent in seven years.

Education and skill development needs to be pursued vigorously. Public-private partnerships can pay rich dividends. We created the National Commission on Human Development; the National Vocational and Technical Education Commission was created for skill development which in turn led to innumerable vocational training centres imparting three- to six-month turnaround courses for construction skills. The overall strategy was for universalising education up to middle class and then diverting the people towards skill development.

Food, water and energy should be considered as the inalienable right of all. Sixty per cent of diseases in Pakistan are water-borne. We initiated a project of installing water-filtration plants down to the union council (15 to 20 villages) level. Electricity was provided to all villages with more than 50 houses. Simple food kitchens for the poorest segments need to be provided with public-private philanthropic participation.

These are the main areas of human security as part of non-traditional security which will reinforce national security and enhance the people’s stakes in the state. This brings me to the aspect of sustainable democracy.

First and foremost, democracy must be tailored to fit the environment in which it is to function. There is no set formula. No country’s example can be superimposed on others without adjustment.

In Pakistan, democratic institutions are under-developed, and democratically elected governments have always failed to deliver. Whenever there has been a dysfunctional, elected government running the state aground (which invariably has been the case), people take the only recourse of appealing to the army to take over. The army’s response to this mass national appeal can only be unconstitutional. There is no constitutional salvation.

In such a crisis, which has struck all too often, the question that gets debated is whether upholding democracy is more important than rescuing the state. An institutional role, therefore, has to be evolved for the military to voice its concerns to prevent any unconstitutional act, which the public pressurises them to do.

This I call checks and balances.

The other important factor is the empowerment of the people. We must devolve authority to the lowest level — empowerment and authority devolution to the district level and below means giving them political, administrative and financial authority.

Empowering the people is inadequate if women and minorities are not integrated into governance. They must appropriately be represented at all tiers of political authority so that they feel the satisfaction of belonging and participating in nation-building. We empowered women and minorities by giving them reserved seats in the district, provincial and national assemblies besides their right to contest openly from any constituency.

The ultimate factor behind all development of the state, welfare of its people, the country’s unity and integrity is collective economic wellbeing. Economic strength is the mother of all development and the guarantor of national security and sustainable democracy.

The writer is a former military ruler of Pakistan