Nirupama Subramanian
The PPP leader’s return to Pakistan heralds the return of democratic politics but sharpens political polarisation.
The former Pakistan Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, at a news conference at her residence in Karachi on Tuesday.
Is Benazir Bhutto the only leader in Pakistan with the common touch and the ability to draw people like a magnet, or is she just basking in her late father’s charisma? Should she be welcomed back as a leader who will restore democracy? Or is she a hypocrite in a military uniform under that salwar suit?
Can she take credit for President Pervez Musharraf’s if-and-but decision to step down as army chief through her negotiations with the regime? Or has she perpetuated military rule through a Washington-backed deal with a man who will remain in the army even out of uniform? Is the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) — the culmination of the Benazir-Musharraf deal — withdrawing corruption charges against Ms Bhutto morally indefensible? Or does the massive reception on her October 18 arrival in Pakistan indicate that she has been exonerated by the people’s court?
Should she have indulged in a show of strength with a procession of hundreds of thousands of people despite being aware of the security threats to her life and put so many lives at risk? Or was it her right as the leader of Pakistan’s largest political party to mobilise her supporters in that manner, and the government’s duty to ensure that nothing untoward happened?
Questions, questions and more questions. Pakistan remains as divided about Ms Bhutto’s return home after eight years of self-imposed exile, as it was before she came back.
There is some sympathy stemming from the fact that she was the intended target of the suicide attacks during her triumphant welcome parade that killed 139 people and left more than 500 wounded or maimed for life, turning celebration into carnage. There is also grudging respect over the fact that she was brave enough to return despite fears and warnings that powerful elements were plotting to kill her. But as yet, there is no outpouring of overwhelming support for her.
Feelings of love and hatred
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his daughter have always inspired feelings of both deep love and deep hatred in Pakistanis. According to political analyst Shafqat Mahmood, it is no different this time — except that Ms Bhutto has added to the division by her trade-off with President Musharraf.
While her ability to mobilise the party faithful in large numbers, even after years of absence, has impressed critics, and the deadly attacks on her procession drew concern, these do not seem to have melted hearts.
Her perceived pro-American tilt, and her statements (which the Pakistan People’s Party says were misquoted) about giving the United Nations access to question A.Q. Khan or allowing the United States to carry out operations in the tribal areas, have prompted the “she had it coming to her”-type of statements and condemnation that she is to blame for the death of so many innocents.
Her opponents have panned the extraordinary numbers of people who turned out to welcome the PPP leader as being not a spontaneous gathering of supporters but the result of a painstaking mobilisation effort, involving millions of rupees. They draw the contrast with 1986, when people without any political affiliation turned out to hail the return of a Joan of Arc who would save Pakistan from a hated military dictator. This time around, the mobilisation is also credited to the scent of power blowing through the PPP owing to Ms Bhutto’s pact with President Musharraf. The government helped by not standing in the way as it did with the Pakistan Muslim League (N) when its leader Nawaz Sharif attempted to return on September 10.
On the other hand, her supporters believe that Ms Bhutto has nothing to be defensive about. With the mammoth procession, she has shown President Musharraf and the U.S. that she cannot be trifled with.
She may have a pact with Gen. Musharraf but she will not be his puppet. She demonstrated on arrival that she is the leader of the poorest and the downtrodden of Pakistan, its youth — most people in the procession were under 25 years — and if they turned out despite knowing the risk to their lives, it is because they identify with her party’s anti-extremist, anti-militant, and pro-liberal-secular standpoint. She has shown that despite her absence from the scene for eight years, and the party’s longer innings in opposition, the PPP’s organisational strength is something to be reckoned with.
Her supporters also maintain that Ms Bhutto, vilified for doing a deal with President Musharraf, has in truth outfoxed him. She made a pact with the General so that she could return without the fear of being arrested, and then maximised the opportunity by summoning a massive roadshow. In the process, she made it clear she would not adhere to a Musharraf-penned script. She further strayed from her lines by accusing Intelligence Bureau chief Brigadier (retd.) Ejaz Shah, a Musharraf confidant, of being behind the attacks on her.
Ms Bhutto’s diatribe against “three individuals” in the government/establishment has also alarmed those who believe her primary role is to provide a political cushion to President Musharraf in the U.S.-led “war on terror.” They are worried she is going off-message. The Daily Times, a staunch supporter of the Musharraf-Benazir pact as the panacea against extremism, advised that such posturing would jeopardise her relations with President Musharraf. The newspaper emphasised that the suicide attacks unmistakably bore the footprint of Al-Qaeda.
Others are goading her to break free now that she is here, telling her she is now powerful enough to chart her own course without making any more compromises with the military.
Writing in The News, columnist Imtiaz Alam said the carnage had given her more political space to alter the civil-military relations.
Strong stand against extremism
Ms Bhutto has already taken a strong position against Islamist extremism, and by cutting loose from President Musharraf she can provide people who are anti-West, anti-military but moderate and secular, a political alternative to the other opposition parties, many of which are religious conservatives, and some pro-jihadi.
But love her or hate her, most people are agreed that Ms Bhutto’s return heralds the end of what Rasul Baksh Rais, who teaches political science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, describes as the “control and command politics” of General Musharraf, conducted through the ruling faction of the PML and the opposition right-wing Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal coalition.
New dynamic
A new dynamic has been unleashed in the political sphere. The mobilisation by the PPP is bound to set off a race among other parties for similar shows, and those who do not have a real constituency are likely to stand exposed. Opposition politicians allege this is one reason the PML(Q) was quick to propose a ban on public rallies and processions, which opposition parties have said they will defy.
As the October 18 attacks showed, there are elements in Pakistan — whether these are Islamist militants or others — who will disrupt democratic mobilisation.
The PPP leader has made statements about the need for a national consensus to tackle militancy, extremism, and terrorism. She has called upon all political leaders and parties to unite to find a way out to prevent terrorists from disrupting the democratic mobilisation of people.
As the leader of the demonstrably largest political party, she is expected to take the lead in this. But critics and supporters alike are asking if Ms Bhutto, who has returned with such divisive baggage, has what it takes to create an atmosphere of trust and cooperation.
No one expected Ms Bhutto’s arrival to set off a process of grand national reconciliation. According to Dr. Rais, her style of politics is not geared to this.
By breaking off with the rest of the opposition and placing herself in a loose alliance with President Musharraf, she has ensured that the political polarisation will worsen over the coming weeks and months ahead of the elections. Her party’s exclusive talks with the Musharraf regime for a caretaker government in the lead-up to the talks have angered other opposition parties.
Her accusations against individuals in government have set off a war with the ruling faction of the Pakistan Muslim League. The Chaudharies who run the PML(Q) already hated her and feared that President Musharraf’s deal with her would marginalise them. They still hope to sabotage the pact.
But the Benazir-Musharraf understanding is more dependent on other factors, namely the upcoming Supreme Court judgment on the presidential election and its decision on the NRO.
The PPP’s performance in the elections will also be crucial, and the party is justified in stressing the absolute importance of free and fair elections. Mr. Sharif’s return — if he is allowed to come back before the elections — could also muddy Ms Bhutto’s road to the high table in Islamabad.
There is a near-unanimous view that if Ms Bhutto is serious about the need to create space for democratic politics through a national consensus, her first step should be to demand the early return of Mr. Sharif, despite the political uncertainties this will bring for her.
At her first press conference in Karachi after escaping the attempt on her life, many people noticed that Ms Bhutto listed the names of several dignitaries who called her to enquire about her safety, but left out Mr. Sharif, who was actually the very first caller. It may have been an unintentional lapse but it did not send out the right signal.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Smoking linked to teen alcohol, drug use -US study
By Will Dunham
Reuters /OCT-23
WASHINGTON : Teenagers who smoke are five times more likely to drink and 13 times more likely to use marijuana than those who are not smokers, according to a report issued on Tuesday.
The report by Columbia University's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse presented further evidence linking youth smoking to other substance abuse and spotlighted research on how nicotine affects the adolescent brain.
"Teenage smoking can signal the fire of alcohol and drug abuse or mental illness like depression and anxiety," Joseph Califano, who heads the center and is a former U.S. health secretary, said in a telephone interview.
The report analyzed surveys conducted by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and other data on youth smokers. Most smokers begin smoking before age 18.
Smokers ages 12 to 17 are more likely drink alcohol than nonsmokers -- 59 percent compared to 11 percent, the report found. Those who become regular smokers by age 12 are more than three times more likely to report binge drinking than those who never smoked -- 31 percent compared to 9 percent.
Binge drinking was defined as having five drinks or more in a row.
The report analyzed surveys conducted by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and other data on youth smokers. Most smokers begin smoking before age 18.
Smokers ages 12 to 17 are more likely drink alcohol than nonsmokers -- 59 percent compared to 11 percent, the report found. Those who become regular smokers by age 12 are more than three times more likely to report binge drinking than those who never smoked -- 31 percent compared to 9 percent.
Binge drinking was defined as having five drinks or more in a row.
Asked whether smoking is causing these other behaviors or is just another risky behavior occurring alongside the others, Califano said, "There's no question that early teenage smoking is linked to these other things. Now whether it's causing it or not, I think the jury is probably still out on that."
Smokers ages 12 to 17 are more apt to meet the diagnostic definition for drug abuse or dependence in the previous year -- 26 percent compared to 2 percent, the researchers said.
Smokers ages 12 to 17 are more apt to meet the diagnostic definition for drug abuse or dependence in the previous year -- 26 percent compared to 2 percent, the researchers said.
The report noted that marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug among teenagers, with government data from 2005 showing 7 percent of those ages 12 to 17 used marijuana.
Of these, current cigarette smokers are 13 times more likely to use marijuana than those who do not smoke.
The younger a child is when he or she starts smoking, the greater the risk, the Columbia team said.
Children who start smoking by age 12 are more than three times more likely to binge on alcohol, nearly 15 times more likely to smoke marijuana and almost seven times more likely to use other drugs such as heroin and cocaine.
Of these, current cigarette smokers are 13 times more likely to use marijuana than those who do not smoke.
The younger a child is when he or she starts smoking, the greater the risk, the Columbia team said.
Children who start smoking by age 12 are more than three times more likely to binge on alcohol, nearly 15 times more likely to smoke marijuana and almost seven times more likely to use other drugs such as heroin and cocaine.
Teenagers who smoke also have a higher risk of depression and anxiety disorders, the study found.
The report cited scientific studies showing the nicotine in tobacco products can produce structural and chemical changes in the developing brain that make young people vulnerable to alcohol and other drug addiction and mental illness.
The report cited scientific studies showing the nicotine in tobacco products can produce structural and chemical changes in the developing brain that make young people vulnerable to alcohol and other drug addiction and mental illness.
This includes effects on the brain chemicals dopamine and serotonin and changes to brain receptors associated with an increased desire for other addictive drugs.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Ghazwat
Ghazwa-e-Badar:
The Muslims who had gone to Medina, had left all their belongings behind in Mecca and these had been taken by their enemies. Thus, when the Muslims heard that Abu Sufyan, one of the leaders of Quraysh, was on his way back to Mecca from Syria with a large caravan of goods, they decided that the time had come for them to retrieve some of their losses. The Prophet (PBUH) gave the Muslims permission for this attack and everyone began to get ready for the raid, for it had been revealed:In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the MercifulPermission to fight is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and Allah is surely able to give them victory; (Koran xxii.39)
The Revelation had mentioned that a thing most serious with Allah was to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Holy Mosque, and to drive his people from there…for persecutionis worse than killing. (Koran ii.217)
The retrieval of their goods, however, was not their only reason forwanting to attack the caravan. The Muslims did not think they should simply remain safely in Medina; they wanted to spread the message of Islam. They thus felt that if Quraysh wanted freedom to trade in safety, then the Muslims must also have freedom to believe in Allah, to follow His Messenger (PBUH), and spread His Word. It was, therefore, thought that the best, and only way to get Quraysh to understand this was to attack what was most important to them-a caravan.Abu Sufyan, in the meantime, heard about the Muslims' plan and Quickly sent a message to Quraysh in Mecca, telling them that the caravan was in danger and asking for help. As a result nearly all Quraysh came out to help him defend the caravan. There were a thousand men and two hundred horses. The women also went along to cheer the men on with their singing.Unaware of this, the Prophet (PBUH) set out with his followers. It was the month of Ramadan and the Muslims were fasting. There were only three hundred and five of them, most of them Ansar, men from Medina.
With them they had three horses and seventy camels, on which they rode in turns.They arrived in the area of Badr, some distance from Medina where they made camp and waited for news of the caravan. Then they heard that Quraysh had set out from Mecca with a strong army. The situation had suddenly changed. They were no longer going to make a raid on a caravan-they were going to have to fight Quraysh.The Prophet (PBUH) gathered his men around him to find out what they wanted to do. First Abu Bakr, and then ‘Umar, spoke for the Muslims who had come from Mecca. They said they would obey the Prophet (PBUH). But the Prophet (PBUH) wanted to hear the opinion of the Ansar, because he did not want to force them into doing something they did not want to do.Sa’d ibn Mu’adh, one of the leaders of the Ansar, got up and said, we believe in you and we swear before all men that what you have brought is the truth. We have given you our word and agreement to hear and obey. So go where you wish, we are with you even if you should lead us into the sea!The Prophet (PBUH) was greatly encouraged by these words and so it was agreed to fight. Abu Sufyan learned where the Muslims were camped. He changed the course of the caravan and quickly took it out of their reach. He then sent word to Quraysh telling them that the caravan was safe and that they should return to Mecca. But the leaders of Quraysh were proud and stubborn men. They refused to return as they had made up their minds to show everyone how powerful they were by destroying the Muslims.Now there was a wadi, or valley, at Badr, with wells on the side nearest Medina, and it was here that the Muslims took up position facing the valley with the wells behind them. Quraysh meanwhile placed themselves on the other side of the valley.
The Muslims then dug a reservoir, filled it with water from one of the wells, and made a barrier around it. Then they stopped up the wells. In this way the Muslims had enough drinking water for themselves, while the Meccans would have to cross the valley and fight the Muslims in order to get water. The night before the battle, while the Muslims slept peacefully, a heavy rain fell.In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the MercifulWhen He made the slumber fall upon you as a reassurance from Him and sent down water from the sky upon you, in order that He might purify you, and remove from you the fear of Satan, andstrengthen your hearts and make firm (your) fret thereby.(Koran viii.11)
On the morning of Friday, the 17th of Ramadan, 2 A.H., (March 17th, A.D.), the two armies advanced and drew closer to one another. The rain been heavier on the side of Quraysh, making the ground soft and difficult. On the side of the Muslims, however, the rain had backed the sand down hard, making it easy for them to march. The Prophet (PBUH) preferred the men to fight in ranks. As they prepared to march he noticed someone had stepped out in front of the others. The Prophet (pbuh)prodded him in the side with an arrow, saying, 'Stand in line!'The man, Sawad, exclaimed, 'You have hurt me, O Messenger of Allah! Allah has sent you to be just and good.' Prophet (PBUH) lifted his shirt and said, 'Then do the same to me. The man approached and kissed him on the spot instead, saying, 'O Messenger of Allah, you see what is before us and I may not survive the battle. If this is my last time with you, I want the last thing I do in life to be this.'Shortly after he went into battle, Sawad died a martyr. Having examined the ranks, the Prophet (PBUH) then went to a shelter made of palm branches from which he could command the battle.
Abu Bakr stayed with him, while Sa’d ibn Mu'adh, with several of the Ansar, stood outside guarding the hut. When the Prophet (PBUH) saw the enormous Quraysh army descending the hill into the valley, with all their banners and drums, he began to pray for the help which Allah had promised him. These were some of his words. 'O Allah, here come Quraysh full of vanity and pride, who oppose Thee and call Thy Messenger a liar. O Allah, if this little band (the Muslims) perishes today, there will be none left in the land to worship Thee.'In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful When ye sought help of your Lord and He answered you (saying): I will help you with a thousand of the angels, rank on rank. Allah appointed it only as good tidings, and that your hearts might thereby be at ease. Victory cometh only by the help of Allah. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise.(Koran viii. 9-10) At first the battle began in single combat when one of Quraysh swore that he would drink from the Muslims' reservoir and then destroy it, or die in the attempt. Hamzah, the Prophet's uncle, came forward to face him and killed him. Three of the most important men of Quraysh then stepped forward and gave out a challenge for single combat. The Prophet (PBUH) sent out 'Ali, Hamzah, and ‘Ubaydah ibn al-Harith, to face them. It was not long before Hamzah and ‘Ali had killed their opponents. As for 'Ubaydah, he had wounded his enemy but was wounded himself, and so his two companions killed the wounded Meccan and carried 'Ubaydah back to the safety of the Muslim ranks.After this, the two armies attacked each other and fighting broke out all around. The sky was filled with arrows. The Muslim army held its ground against the great army of Quraysh and even though the Muslims were much fewer in number, they gained a great victory, destroying the Meccan army and killing most of its leaders. Among the leading Meccans who died were Abu Jahl and Umayyah ibn Khalaf, who was killed by his former slave, Bilal. Seeing that their leaders were nearly all dead, the remainder of Quraysh retreated.The Prophet (PBUH) sent word to Medina to tell them of the victory. He then gathered up the spoils of war and divided them equally among the Muslims. Some of the Meccans had been taken prisoner and the Prophet (PBUH) gave orders that they should be treated well until their relatives from among Quraysh came to fetch them.In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful Ye (M) did slay them, but Allah slew them and thou (Muhammad) threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allah threw, so that He might test the believers by a fair test from Him. Lo! Allah is All-hearing, All-Knowing.(Koran viii.17)
Ghazwa-e-uhud :
When the survivors of the defeated Quraysh at Badr returned to Mecca gathered to speak with Abu Sufyan. They said, 'Muhammad has best men, so help us to fight him so that we may avenge those we have lost.' In order to do this it was agreed that everyone who had had a share in the caravan should put his profits towards the cost of a new army, which would be three times as big as the one at Badr. Among those who joined the new army was an Abyssinian slave called Wahshi; who was known for his accuracy with the spear. His master, Jubayr ibn al-Mut’im, said to him, 'Go with the army and if you kill Hamzah, the uncle of Muhammad, in revenge for my uncle's death, I will set you free when Hind, Abu Sufyan's wife, heard about this she sent a Wahshi to say that she would clothe him in gold and silk if he would carry out his master's wish, for she, too, wanted Hamzah dead because he had both her father and brother.While the Meccans made their plans, the Prophet's uncle, ‘Abbas, one the few Muslims still living in Mecca, sent a letter of warning to the Prophet (PBUH) in Medina. He told him that Quraysh were setting out with a huge arm for Uhud, a place just outside Medina. On receiving this timely warning the Prophet (PBUH) gathered his companions around him to discuss what they should do. He thought it would be better to wait for the enemy inside city rather than go out to meet them, because it would be easier to defend Medina from inside the city walls. But the young Muslims were go out and face Quraysh. They said, 'O Prophet of Allah, lead us out against our enemies, or else they will think we are too cowardly and too weak to fight them.'One of the rulers of Medina, ‘Abd Allah ibn Ubayy, however, agreed with the Prophet (pbuh) and advised him to remain in the city, saying, 'Whenever we have gone out to fight an enemy we have met with disaster, but none has ever come in against us without being defeated.'But when the Prophet (PBUH) saw that the majority were in favor of going out to meet Quraysh, he decided to do so, and after the Friday prayer he put on his armor.
The Muslims then set out with one thousand men in the direction of Mount Uhud which overlooks Medina. The enemy was camped on the plain below the mountain where they were laying waste the crops of the Muslims.'Abd Allah ibn Ubayy was angry that the Prophet (PBUH) had not followed his advice and after going part of the way, turned back for Medina, taking one third of the entire army with him. This left the Prophet (PBUH) with only seven hundred men to meet the enormous Meccan army, which numbered three thousand.The remainder of the Muslims went on until they reached the mountain of Uhud. There the Prophet (PBUH) ordered them to stand in ranks in front of the mountain, so that they would be protected from behind. He then positioned fifty archers on top of the mountain, giving them the following order: 'Keep the Meccan cavalry away from us with your arrows and don't let them come against us from the rear, whether the battle goes in our favor or against us. Whatever happens keep to your places so that we cannot be attacked from your direction, even if you see us being slain or booty being taken.'When the Muslims were in position, the Prophet (PBUH) held up his sword and said, 'Who will use this sword with its right?' This was a great honor and many men rose to claim it, but the Prophet (PBUH) decided to give it to Abu Dujanah, a fearless warrior. Then the battle commenced.The Muslims were well organized and had the advantage, because although Quraysh had more than four times as many men, they were tired from their journey and thus not ready to fight. As a result, the Muslims were able to make a surprise attack, led by Abu Dujanah, who was wearing a brilliant red turban.As the fighting increased the Quraysh women, led by Hind, began to beat their drums to urge their men on. They called out poems to encourage their men to be brave. If you advance, we hug you, spread soft rugs beneath you; if you retreat, we leave you. Leave and no more love you.' Abu Dujanah said: 'I saw someone urging the enemy on, shouting wildly, and I made for him, but when I lifted my sword against him he screamed and I saw that it was a woman; I respected the Apostle's sword too much to use it on a woman.' That woman was Hind.As usual, Hamzah, the Prophet's uncle, fought with great courage, but while leading the Muslims in a fierce attack, which nearly defeated the Meccans, he was suddenly and cruelly struck down by the slave Wahshi. Later, Wahshi told how it happened: 'I was watching Hamzah while he was killing men with his sword. I. .. aimed my spear until I was sure it would the mark and hurled it at him. He came on towards me but collapsed and fell. I left him there until he died, then I came and took back my spear. Then I went back to the camp because I did not want to kill anyone but him. My only aim in killing him was to gain my freedom.'The Quraysh warriors were soon scattered and forced to retreat. It looked as though they had been defeated! Seeing this, forty of the fifty Muslims archers on top of the mountain ran down from their position to collect booty, for the Quraysh army had left many of their belongings behind.
The archers rushed to take what they could, forgetting the Prophet's orders. Khalid ibn al-Walid, Commander of the Quraysh cavalry, saw what' happening and quickly turned his men around and ordered them to attack the Muslims from behind. The Muslims were taken completely by surprise. The Quraysh then began attacking from both sides at once. Many Muslims were killed and instead of winning they began to lose the battle. To add to the confusion, it was rumored that the Prophet (PBUH) had killed. When the Muslims heard this they were at a loss to know what to do. Then a man named Anas called out, 'Brothers! If Muhammad (PBUH) has been killed what will your lives be worth without him? Don't think about living or dying. Fight for Allah. Get up and die the way Muhammad (PBUH) died!’ and on hearing these words the Muslims took courage.There had been several cavalry attacks on the position held by the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions and the Prophet's cheek had been badly gashed. As the Meccans closed in again he called out, 'Who will sell his life for us?' At this, five Ansar got up and fought until they were killed, one by one. Their places were soon taken, however, by a number of Muslims who drove off the attackers. Amongst the defending Muslims was Abu Dujanah who put his arms around the Prophet (PBUH) and made himself into a human shield. Throughout the remainder of the battle he held on to the Prophet (PBUH), but as the fighting drew to a close he suddenly let go. Abu Dujanah was dead, killed by the many arrows in his back that had been aimed at the Prophet (PBUH).With the defeat of the Muslims, Quraysh were at last avenged. As they left the field of battle Abu Sufyan called out to his men, 'You have done well; victory in war goes by turns-today in exchange for Badr!'When he heard this, the Prophet (pbuh) told ‘Umar to answer him, saying,'Allah is Most High and Most Glorious. We are not equal. Our dead are in Paradise and your dead are in Hell!' The Muslim soldiers then followed the departing Quraysh part of the way to make sure they were not going to attack Medina.After the enemy had left, the Prophet (PBUH) made his way around the Battle-field to see the extent of the Muslim losses. Many of the most faithful Muslims had been killed. Among the dead, the Prophet (PBUH) found the body of his closest friend and uncle, Hamzah, who had been killed by the slave, Wahshi. At the sight of this, the Prophet (PBUH) said, 'There will never be a moment as sad for me as this.' Hamzah's sister, Safiyya, came to pray and ask forgiveness for her brother, saying 'We belong to Allah and to Allah we are returning.' After the Prophet (PBUH) had prayed over the many dead, he said, 'I tell you that no one has been wounded Allah's cause but Allah will remember him and on the Day of Resurrection will raise him from the dead. Look for the one who has lthe Koran and put him in front of his companions in the grave.' They were buried where they had fallen as martyrs. Of them Allah says:In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful Do not Think that those, who were killed for Allah's sake are dead. Nay, they are alive. With their Lord they have provision. Jubilant (are they) because of that which Allah hath bestowed upon them of His bounty, rejoicing for the sake of those that have not yet joined them because they have nothing to fear or grieve over.(Koran iii.169-170) It is said that the Prophet (PBUH) swore that no Muslim who had died for his beliefs would want to come back to life for a single hour, even if he could own the whole world, unless he could return and fight for Allah and be killed a second time.The Muslims realized that their defeat had been caused by their disobedience to the Prophet (PBUH). The Koran tells us that the Muslims had been tested by Allah at Uhud and had failed but that Allah forgave them their weakness.In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful Some of you there are that desire this world, and some of you there are that desire the next world. Then He turned you from them, that He might try you; and He has forgiven you; and Allah is bounteous to the believers.(Koran iii.145)People living nowadays should learn from the lessons learned by the early Muslims at Uhud. Disobedience to the Prophet (PBUH) and love for the things of this world caused their defeat. The same can happen to us as well. Even if we have no battle like Uhud to fight, we can still die for Allah's sake by fighting what is bad in ourselves. When the Prophet (PBUH) came back from a battle he said to his men, 'We have returned from the lesser war to the greater war.' He meant by this that the struggle that goes on within every human being to become a better person is the more difficult battle.
Ghazwa-e-Khandaq:
When the Prophet (PBUH) first arrived in Medina, the Jews who were living there had welcomed him. The Prophet (PBUH) had returned their greeting, as he wished to be on good terms with them. An agreement was also reached between the Muslims and the Jews, which gave the Jews the freedom to practice their religion and which also set out their rights and their duties. Among these duties was that in the case of war with Quraysh, the Jews would fight on the side of the Muslims.Despite this agreement, however, some of the Jewish tribes, who resented the Prophet's presence in Medina, soon began to cause trouble amongst the Muslims. They tried to set the Muslim Emigrants from Mecca and the Ansar against each other. The troublemakers were given many warnings but they continued to be a nuisance. In the end, the Muslims had no choice but to drive them from Medina. A new agreement was offered those Jews who remained but the trouble did not end there. One of the Jewish tribes, the Bani Nadir plotted to murder the Prophet (PBUH) but their plan was discovered and they, too, were exiled from the city. Knowing that they could not defeat the Muslims themselves, some of the leaders of the exiled Jews secretly went to Mecca to enlist the help of Quraysh. Knowing what the Meccans would like to hear, they pretended to believe in the same things. They said that they thought that the old Arab tradition was better than the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and that they believed that the Quraysh religion of worshipping many idols was better than the Prophet's with only one God. Then the Jews told them that if all the Arab tribes attacked Medina, the Jews inside the city would help to defeat the Prophet (PBUH) and Islam once and for all.The leaders of Quraysh were pleased to hear all this and seizing on what seemed to them a very good opportunity, agreed to the plan and began to gather together a formidable army. In the meantime in Medina, only one Jewish tribe, the Bani Quraydhah, refused to betray the Muslims.Eventually the Muslims learned of the preparations being made for war in Mecca and of the plotting of the Jews within Medina itself. The betrayal of the Muslims by the Jews did not surprise the Prophet (PBUH), who said of them: 'The hearts of the Jews have become closed to the truth. They have forgotten what Muses taught them long ago that there is only one God.'In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful The likeness of those who are entrusted with the Law of Moses, yet apply it not, is as the likeness of the ass carrying books. Evil is the likeness of the people who deny the revelations of Allah. And Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.(Koran lxii.5) The Muslims wondered how they could defend Medina. They heard that Abu Sufyan was coming to attack them with an enormous army which included many other Arab tribes, as well as Quraysh. What were they to do with only a single week to prepare? The Prophet (PBUH) and his men knew that it would be impossible for them to fight off all these tribes! The only thing they could do was to stay inside the city and try to defend it as best they could.
Now among the people of Medina was a Persian named Salman, who had to live in the city some time before the Prophet's arrival there. As a convert to Christianity he had traveled to Medina after Christian sages had told him that a Prophet would be born in Arabia. On arriving in Medina he was, however, sold into slavery by the merchants with whom he had traveled. Later he became a Muslim, gained his freedom and became a member of the Prophet's household.When the people gathered to discuss a plan of action against the approaching enemy , Salman was present and it was he who suggested that they should dig a trench around the city. The Prophet (PBUH) thought this a good idea, so the Muslims set to work, although it was in the middle of winter. They worked day and night, digging the trench as quickly as possible. The Prophet (PBUH) himself carried rocks and when the men were tired he gave them the will to carry on. Someone later recalled how beautiful he looked, dressed in a red cloak with dust upon his breast and his dark hair nearly reaching his shoulders.There was little food at this time and the men were often hungry as they worked. On one occasion, however, a little girl gave some dates to the Prophet (PBUH), which he spread out on a cloth. The men were then called to eat and the dates kept increasing in number until everyone had been fed. Even after everyone had eaten their fill, the dates continued to increase so that there were more than the cloth could hold.Similarly, there is the story of the lamb, that has come down to us from one who was there: 'We worked with the Apostle at the trench. I had a half-grown lamb and I thought it would be a good thing to cook it for Allah's Messenger. I told my wife to grind barley and make some bread for us. I killed the lamb and we roasted it for the Prophet (PBUH). When night fell and he was about to leave the trench, I told him we had prepared bread and meat and invited him to our home. I wanted him to come on his own, but when I said this he sent someone to call all the men to come along. Everyone arrived and the food was served. He blessed it and invoked the Name of Allah over it. Then he ate and so did all of the others. As soon as one lot were satisfied, another group came until all the diggers had eaten enough, but still there was food to spare.On March 24, 627 A.D., Abu Sufyan arrived with more than ten thousand men. The Muslims numbered only three thousand. Quraysh and their allies surrounded Medina but between the two armies was the long, wide trench. The Prophet (PBUH) and his men stayed behind this trench for nearly a month defending the city against their more powerful enemy. Many times warriors tried to cross the trench and enter the city, but each time they were pushed back by the Muslims. The Muslims were afraid that if any did manage to cross over, the Jews inside Medina would join forces with them and the Muslims would be beaten. The Jewish tribe of Bani Quraydhah, who had stood by the, agreement with the Muslims, were pressed by a Jewish emissary from the enemy without, to break their promise.
Eventually they agreed to do so and when the news of this reached the Prophet (PBUH) and his companions they were greatly troubled. Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, the leader of the tribe of Aws, was sent by the Prophet (PBUH) with two other men to find out if this were true. When they arrived in the part of Medina where the Jews lived, they found were even worse than they had previously thought. Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, whose tribe was closely allied with the Bani Quraydhah, tried to persuade their leader not to break the treaty with the Muslims, but he refused to listen. This meant that the Muslims could not relax their guard for one moment, for they were now threatened not only by the enemy beyond the trench, but by the Bani Qurayzah, within the walls of the city. Things became more difficult for the Muslims day by day. It was extremely cold and food began to run out. To make matters worse, the Bani Qurayzah began openly and actively to join forces with the other Jews and cut off all supplies to the Muslims, including food. The enemies of Islam then planned how to capture Medina. The situation looked desperate and the Prophet (PBUH) prayed to Allah to Allah to help the Muslims defeat their enemies. That very night a sandstorm blew up which buried the tents of Quraysh. The storm continued for three days and three nights making it impossible for the enemy to light a fire to cook a meal or warm themselves by.On one of these dark nights the Prophet (PBUH) asked one of his men, Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, to go on a dangerous mission. The Prophet (PBUH) told him to his way across the trench to the enemy camp where he should find out what they were doing. With much difficulty Hudhayfah crossed the trench and made his way to a circle of Quraysh warriors talking in the darkness. He sat near them, but as there was no fire, no one noticed him. He then heard Abu Sufyan's voice: 'Let us go hom!' he said. 'We have had enough. The horses and camels are dying, the tents keep blowing away, most of the equipment has been lost, and we can not cook our food. There is no reason to stay!' Shortly after hearing this Hudhayfah made his way quickly and quietly back across the trench and the next morning the Muslims rejoiced to find that what he had overheard had come true-Quraysh and their allies had gone away! The siege of Medina had ended in a great victory for Islam. But this was not to be the end of the difficulties, for the Archangel Gabriel the Prophet (PBUH) and told him that he should punish the Bani Qurayzah for betraying him and the Muslims. On hearing this, the Prophet (PBUH) ordered the Muslims to march against the Bani Qurayzah as they hid in their fortress. The Muslims besieged them for twenty-five days until they finally gave in. On surrendering, they asked the Prophet (PBUH) to let someone judge their case, and he agreed. He also allowed them to choose who would give the ruling. The man chosen to judge the Bani Qurayzah was Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, leader of the Aws, a tribe which had always protected the Qurayzah in the past. Sa'd ibn Mu'adh who had himself been wounded in the battle, decided that the Jews should be tried by their own Holy Law, according to which anyone who broke a treaty would be put to death. As a result all the men of the Bani Qurayzah were executed and the women and children made captive. If the Jews had succeeded in their pact, Islam would have been destroyed. Instead from that day on, Medina became a city where only Muslims lived. Very soon after peace had been restored to Medina, Sa'd ibn Mu'adh died of his wounds. It was said that the Archangel Gabriel came in the middle of that night and said to the Prophet (PBUH) 'O Muhammad, who is this dead man? When he arrived, the doors of heaven opened and the Throne of Allah shook.' The Prophet (PBUH) got up as soon as he heard this, but found that Sa'd was already dead. Although he had been a heavy man, the men who carried his body to the grave found it quite light. They were told that the angels were helping them. When he was buried, the Prophet (PBUH) said three times 'Subhan Allah!' (Glory be to Allah!), and 'Allahu Akbar!' (Allah is Most Great!). When asked why he did this, he replied, 'The grave was tight for this good man, until Allah eased it for him.' This is one of the rewards that Allah gives to martyrs and good Muslims.
Seerah of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)
I. DEFINITION OF SEERAH:
Literal meaning:
Seerah is a word of Arabic language whose plural is seer. Actually this word is taken from saar, seren or mseerahn which are used in the meaning of walking. may be this is the reason that good repute is also referred to as hasan-alseerah
The word seerah is also used in the meaning of distance, as the meaning of alsiyara is voyage.
Again the word seerah is also used to tell the doings of earlier people.
According to another Arabic dictionary Taj-ul-uroos al-seerah means way to doing something.
Two other Arabic dictionaries Almuajam Alazam and Msbah-ul-Lughat give these meanings of the word seerah:
1. To leave - to depart
2. Way to doing something
3. Appearance
4. Sunnah
5. Way of living
6. Habit
7. Story - tales of earlier people
According to Dr. Sayad Abdullah the meaning of word seerah is not only limited to sunnah, way of living or appearance but it also includes the internal personality, important achievements and life histories of big personalities.
Professor Usman Yourish presents this aaya of Quran to describe the meaning of seerah:
“O prophet, tell the people to stroll on the earth to see what is the end of people who denied”.
And he says that the word seer means to look for solid and positive realities with complete focus, to think profoundly and to build ones personality with good conduct and deeds. So the seerah is a collection of rules and actions of a chaste and virtuous person.
Figurative meaning:
We have described the literal meaning of seerah but the actual use of this word is to describe the life history, behavior and habits of the prophet Muhammad SAW. The earlier books of seerah were called maghazi so in the meaning of seerah included the description of prophet Muhammad’s maghazi and afterwards his life histories description also included. Maghazi are those wars in which prophet Muhammad participated himself, and accordingly maghazi not only encircled the ghazwat but it also covered the whole life of prophet and all the incidents of the age of prophet.
Difference between Seerah and Biography
Biography is another word that is usually thought to be the synonym of seerah, but in fact there is a minute difference between these two. There are many definitions of biography, for example, dictionary of world literature by Joseph T. Shelly says that biography is a description of the ideas and doings of a person from his birth till his death, i.e. it is a picture of a person’s personality, a tale of his external attitude and internal feelings. And biography is that type of history that is not about human groups or casts but about a single person.
In contrast to this, seerah is an ideal picture of a person life story, which is free of all types of misdeeds and wrongdoing. The prophet of Islam SAW is at the height of human goodness, and although his seerah is composition of accounts of his life yet this seerah is superior and attractive from all aspects. This is why it is wrong to think seerah as a biography.
Seerah and History
In Islamic disciplines seerah is said to be a semi-historical and semi-biographical subject, and there is no doubt that Muslim’s historical art has impressions from the art of seerah writing. The evolution of art of history writing and the art of seerah writing of Arabs took place along with one another. The art of seerah writing gave very solid grounds for the development of the art of history writing. But we should not ignore the fact that there is some difference between history and seerah writing. The topics of history normally include empire, nations or era, and accordingly personalities can also be discussed. On the other hand the seerah writer selects the person as a topic and secondarily he discusses the empire or era.
Seerah and Hadith
The literal meaning of hadith is to copy a news or information. And in its figurative meaning its that sentence that is said by the prophet Muhammad SAW.
Difference between hadith and seerah is that while writing seerah special attention is given to the timings of the events, while in hadith there are some parts of the events of prophet Muhammad’s life but these are without any order or organization. Anyhow there is no doubt that the most authentic material about seerah is found in the books of hadith. Although in some places seerah writers did not took care of the sequence of rawayat as done by hadith writers, and this is why in the eyes of most people hadith is authentic rather then seerah.
II. SOURCES OF SEERAH
The important sources of seerah of Prophet Muhammad SAW are:
1. The Holy Quran
2. Books of Hadith
3. Books of maghazi
4. Books of history
5. Books of tafseer
6. Books of asma’a alrijal
7. Books of shuma’l
8. Books of Dala’l
9. Books of aasaar and akhbar
10. Ma’asrana poetry
1. The Holy Quran
The holy Quran is the basic source of the seerah. In this divine book the important parts of the Prophet Muhammad’s seerah are present. His early life, the orphaned times, poverty, financial relaxation in youth, search of the Truth, selection for being a prophet, revelation, his call towards Islam, opposition of kuffar, spread of Islam, meraj, migration to Habsha, migration to madina, important ghazwat, his family life and his behavior and habits – all these can be found in Quran. Sir William Muir has said “there is no exaggeration in the statement that Quran contains all the basic facts required to know the seerah or the earlier times of Islam, and all the researchable parts of Muhammad SAW life can be judged by this book. So we can find facts about all the religious belief of Prophet Muhammad, his personal life and his public affairs in this book with authentication. Quran is a mirror that reflects the seerah and the character of Muhammad SAW. This is why this was popular like a phrase that the seerah of prophet Muhammad SAW was Quran”.
Professor Sayad Nawab Ali writes that “This (Quran) first source of maghazi and seerah was saved by writing and learning by heart, in the early life 23 years of prophet’s life. And after one year of his death Abu Bakar RA compiled the complete Quran as one book. And Usman RA sent its 6 copies to balad-e-islamiya in 25 A.H. This was the Quran that was studied by the muslims who did saw the Prophet Muhammad SAW with their own eyes.
The Quran on one hand describes some important aspects of prophet Muhammad’s life and on the other hand it also discusses some events of his life. It also counts some features of his character. All this is not as arranged as it is in the books of seerah and history, but its simple and beautiful, and is always conveying some ethical lesson. The prophet was sent to a specific county, in a specific time and in a specific society, but the message that was given to you in the form of Quran was for the whole world, for all times and for all societies. The teaching of Quran is for the whole mankind and the prophet who was given Quran represents the best way of acting upon these teachings. Allah the almighty says that the seerah of the prophet Muhammad SAW is the best that can be followed by all believers.
The first image that Quran gives about the prophet Muhammad SAW is the image of a great messenger a messenger whose news was given through divine messages in earlier times. Quran has given him different names like Muhammad, Ahmad, Muzamil, Mudassir, Nabi-e-ummi, Hadi, Shahid, Mubashir, Noor, Rehmatul-almeen, Rasool-e-sadiq, beloved of Allah and appreciated by angels. But his most favorite attribute in the light of Quran is his being human and being the prophet of Allah. And this proves that his actual position was of a human being who was given the designation of the prophet.
The Quran gives clear reflections of prophet Muhammad’s life in Makka and in Madina. Here is a list that shows that where in Quran what events are talked about.
Event
Surah : Ayah
Financial relaxation in youth
93 : 6-8
Caste life before he was given prophethood
29:48
His search for reality
93:7
Prophethood
3:164
Revelation
96:1-5
Call towards Islam in Makka
5:67
Opposition of Quraish and their torture
6:33-35
Problems in the way of Islam
6:106-107
The event of Meraj
17:1
Migration of muslims towards habsha
16:41
The plan of murder of prophet
8:30
Migration to Madina
9:40
Construction of masjid-e-quba
9:108
Ghazwa-e-Badar
3:123
Ghazwa-e-Uhad
3:121-175
Ghazwa-e-Ahzab
33:9-20
Ghazwa-e-Hunain
9:25-26
Ghazwa-e-Tabook
9:92-106,117-123
Bait-e-Rizwan
48:18,19
The agreement of Hudabiya
48:2-27
Fatah-e-Makka
17:81
Hijja-tul-wida
5:3
And this is not all. Quran also contains some glimpses about his married life, his social contacts, his character and his habits.
Married life
33:2-51
Social contacts
Several aaya of Al-Imran and Al-Ahzab
Character
Several aaya of Tooba, Al-Imran and Al-Ahzab
Behavior and conduct
Several aaya of Tooba, Al-Imran and Al-Ahzab
The special position of wives of prophet
33:30-34
The event of Tehreem
66:3-5
Nikah of Zainab RA with Zaid RA, divorce and marriage to the prophet.
33:37
Prophet’s more attention to the leaders of Makka and ignorance from the blind companion
80:1-16
Quran also takes a momentary view of the prophets heartiest friends and his wickedest enemies. Its talks about Abu Baker RA as the companion of Soor without mentioning his name and also talk about Lahab and his wife. A complete soorah is given the name after him, who did his best to give the Allah’s messenger pain and distress. The Quran gives both of these the news of there bad consequences. (Al-Lahab 111:1 - 5)
Similarly Quran also talks about the father of Khalid bin Walid whose name was Walid bin Gughaira. He was wealthy, greedy, power loving and proud person. He denied the divine book and used to call it a result of magic. He spent his days and nights in the opposition of the prophet SAW. Quran do not mention his name but he is given the news of hell.
So the conclusion is that there is no aspect of the prophet’s life which Quran ignores. Moulana Abul Kalam Azad writes “if all the books about history of Islam are lost and only Quran lives, even then the character of the prophet could be known. Quran will the the world that who was the prophet who was given this Quran, where was he born, what was the condition of his nation, what life did he spend, what did he did with the world and what the world did with him. How was his social life and how was his personal life. How was his days spent and how did he used to spend his nights. How much life did he got. What important events occurred in his life. And when the time came that he left the world, what was the condition of this world”.
Almost the same opinion is given by Sayad Abul Al’a Mududi. He writes “if all the collection of books about seerah is lost that is compiled by the Islamic scholars, not only a single page is left which could tell about the prophet Muhammad and only the Book of Allah is left, then it could answer all the questions about the person who brought Quran, that could arise in the mind of a student.
2. Books of Hadith
After Quran the major source of seerah of the prophet Muhammad SAW are hadith, whose number of narrators reach more then one lakh. Hadith writers compiled these books after much effors, struggle and endeavor, and hence provided such a remarkable sources for seerah whose example cant be found.
The prophet Muhammad SAW himself wanted that his sayings should reach ummah in their right form. It is said that when he used to talk, he used to utter words slowly and clearly, so that the listeners could understand completely your point of view, and could also remember your sayings. He used to repeate important points three times, so that those stay in the minds of the listeners. He also urged the that his sayings should be told to those who dint listened. There are some hadith in this respect like:
“Those who are present should take these to those who are not”.
“You listen from me, others will listen from you, and rest will listen form them”.
“Allah will make his face fresh, who listened to my words, and remembered those, and even told those who did not heard”.
He also instructed that the hadith should always be verified.
“The person who will relate any false words with me, he should keep in mind that his place is in hell”.
Sayad Suleman Nadwi writes “the people who used to take the responsibility of writing the riwayat about prophet’s sayings, doings, and daily routine are called Rawiyan-e-Hadith, or muhaditheen or Arbab-e-Seer. These include companion’s of prophet Muhammad, Tabiyeen, Taba-Tabiyeen, and some people from the 4th century A.H. When all the details about the prophet’s sayings and doings were recorded, then all the details i.e. history of life, character etc about these narrators was also recorded. The number of such people reach about one 100,000. The details about these is collected in Asma-Arijaal.
Editing of books of Hadith
The formal editing of the books of hadith started in the rein of Umer bin Abdul Aziz (died 101 .H). but this fact is proved that some companions started collecting the prophet’s saying personally. In the beginning the prophet was worried that the hadith may mix with the Quran so he allowed only the writing of Quran. But afterwards when a big portion of Quran was revealed and many companions learned it by heart, then he permitted the writing of hadith.
The booklets of hadith that were formulated in the life of prophet are not now present in the same form, but they became the part of some later books. For example Imam Tarimzi narrates from Saad bin Abada Ansari RA that he had collected some hadith in a booklet. It is said his son uses to narrate hadith from this booklet. Ammam Bukhari says that this booklet was copied from the book of Abdullah bin Abi Aoffa who wrote it with his own hands. Jabbir bin Abdullah also contained a booklet of hadith.
Here I give a list and a brief description of the booklets and the books of Hadith.
The booklets of hadith that were formulated in the life of prophet are not now present in the same form, but they became the part of some later books. For example Imam Tarimzi narrates from Saad bin Abada Ansari RA that he had collected some hadith in a booklet. It is said his son uses to narrate hadith from this booklet. Ammam Bukhari says that this booklet was copied from the book of Abdullah bin Abi Aoffa who wrote it with his own hands. Jabbir bin Abdullah also contained a booklet of hadith.
Here I give a list and a brief description of the booklets and the books of Hadith.
Saheefa-e-Sdiqa
This was the most popular booklet of the times of prophet that was compiled by Abdullah bin Umro bin Alaas.
Saheefa-e-Hammam bin Munabba
Abbu Huraira RA also compiled many booklets of hadith but most of them were lost. Just one was left that is narrated by one of the students of Abbu Huraira RA, whose name was Hamman bin Munabba. This booklet is known by his name.
Kitab-ul-Assar
Ammam abu Hanifa was a great faqeeh, but he also contributed his services for the compilation of hadith. His reference work is said to be Kitab-ul-Asaar.
Mo’ta’
After Kitab-ul-Asaar, the most important collection of hadith is Mo’ta’, compiled by Imam Malik bin Ans (93A.H – 179A.H.). Meaning of Mo’ta’ is decorated. Thus this book is a collection of butiful ahadith of prophet Muhammad.
Masnad Ahmad Bin Jumbal
This is the biggest collection of hadith. It contains about 40,000 Ahadith.
Sahah Sitta
These are the six books that are said to be the best collection of hadith. These books that are popular with the name of there compilers
1. Bukhari
2. Muslim
3. Abu Daood
4. Nisaai
5. Tarimzi
6. Ibn majja
The previous collections were compiled with only one objective. i.e. to save the ahadith. They were not arranged and also contained hadith whose validity was doubtful. These books arranged the ahadith with specific topics and removed the hadith whose validity was unproven.
1. Bukhari
2. Muslim
3. Abu Daood
4. Nisaai
5. Tarimzi
6. Ibn majja
The previous collections were compiled with only one objective. i.e. to save the ahadith. They were not arranged and also contained hadith whose validity was doubtful. These books arranged the ahadith with specific topics and removed the hadith whose validity was unproven.
Different Collections
Some scholars selected some of hadith from other books and arranged them in new collections. Some of these are as under.
1. Msabeeh-al-sunnah
2. Mashkah almsabeeh
3. Jama almsaneed wa alqaab
4. Beher almsaneed
3. Books of Maghazi
Another important source of seerah of prophet Muhammad is those books that were formulated by the people of earlier times. Magazi’s actual meaning is wars but its figurative meaning is those wars in which the propher Muhammad SAW participated himself. Magahzi should have contained only the description of the wars in which the prophet participated but afterwards this word also covered the whole life of prophet. This is why the books about prophet’s life are called maghazi as well as seerah.
Similar to the books of ahadith the books of seerah and maghazi were also started formulating in the times of Umer bin Abdulaziz but its earlier traces are also found in the previous times. Prior to the foremost writers of seerah for example Ibn-Ishaq we find some scholars form tabiyeen and taba-tabiyeen who compiled some books of seerah and maghazi. Although those books are lost with the passage of time but their refferences can be found in the books of later times. These are
2. Mashkah almsabeeh
3. Jama almsaneed wa alqaab
4. Beher almsaneed
3. Books of Maghazi
Another important source of seerah of prophet Muhammad is those books that were formulated by the people of earlier times. Magazi’s actual meaning is wars but its figurative meaning is those wars in which the propher Muhammad SAW participated himself. Magahzi should have contained only the description of the wars in which the prophet participated but afterwards this word also covered the whole life of prophet. This is why the books about prophet’s life are called maghazi as well as seerah.
Similar to the books of ahadith the books of seerah and maghazi were also started formulating in the times of Umer bin Abdulaziz but its earlier traces are also found in the previous times. Prior to the foremost writers of seerah for example Ibn-Ishaq we find some scholars form tabiyeen and taba-tabiyeen who compiled some books of seerah and maghazi. Although those books are lost with the passage of time but their refferences can be found in the books of later times. These are
> Abban bin Usman
> Urwah bin Alzubair
> Sharjeel bin Saad
> Wahab bin Munaba
> Abdullah bin Abbi Bakar
> Asim bin Umer Katada
> Ibn-e-Shahab Zahry
> Abu-ul-Aswad Muhammad bin Abdul Rehman
> Muammar Suleman bin Sulman
> Muamir bin Rashid
> Abu Masher bin Alsindi
> Moosa bin uqba.
> Urwah bin Alzubair
> Sharjeel bin Saad
> Wahab bin Munaba
> Abdullah bin Abbi Bakar
> Asim bin Umer Katada
> Ibn-e-Shahab Zahry
> Abu-ul-Aswad Muhammad bin Abdul Rehman
> Muammar Suleman bin Sulman
> Muamir bin Rashid
> Abu Masher bin Alsindi
> Moosa bin uqba.
Aban Bin Usman
The first to formulate books on maghazi and seerah was Aban bin Usman who was the son of the third Caliph Usman bin Afaan. He was popular as the scholar of hadith, fiqh, and maghazi. Being the son of Usman RA he had the facility to know about he prophet’s life with authentication. So it is told that he composed the first book of maghazi, which was narrated by Mughaira bin Abdul Rehman.
Urwah bin Alzubair
Urwah bin Alzubair bin Aluloom (23-97A.H) was also a major scholar of maghazi and hadith. No part of the book of Abaan bin Usman’s maghazi reached us but some segments of the maghazi written by Urwah bin Alzubair can be found in the books of seerah. His own book “Almaghazi” can not be found anymore. Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, Waqadi, Tibri and Ibn Sayad Alnaar copied contents from the maghazi written by Urwah bin Alzubair in there own books. These are the narration that has reached us about the prophet Muhammad SAW. Urwah bin Zubair has also included some improtant events of prophet’s life along with the details of ghazwat, e.g. the situation at the time of revelation and migration to habsha.
Urwah had close relations with the family of prophet. His father Zubair bin Alowam was one of the ashra mubashra. Asma bin Abu Bakar was your mother and Aisha RA was his auntie. So he used to ask questions from his father, mother and auntie and collected information about the prophet SAW. This is the reason that the valuable information is found in his book which was not accessed by other tabiyeen.
Urwah had close relations with the family of prophet. His father Zubair bin Alowam was one of the ashra mubashra. Asma bin Abu Bakar was your mother and Aisha RA was his auntie. So he used to ask questions from his father, mother and auntie and collected information about the prophet SAW. This is the reason that the valuable information is found in his book which was not accessed by other tabiyeen.
Wahab bin Munaba
Another important writer of maghazi is Wahab bin Munaba, who was the native of southern Arabia but was Iranian . He had great interest in the religious books and narration of Judaism and Christianity. His brother Hamaam bin Munaba’s writings are referred in the books of hadith. Wahab bin Munaba narrates his writings from Abdullah Ibn Abbas, Abu Huraira RA, and Jabir RA but the hadith writers has taken his narration very less often. For example bukhari has taken only one hadith form him.
Asim bin Umer
Asim bin Umer bin Qatada Al-Ansari (dead 120 AH) was also a popular tabiyee. According to Ibn-e-Saad he was ordered by Umer bin Abdul Aziz to stay in the mosque of Damascus and to teach people about the maghazi. So he obeyed this order. It is said that if after some time he came back to his home in Madina and continued teaching maghazi.
Muhammad bin Ishaq met Asim bin Umer in Madina and until he stayed there he continuously attended the lessons of Asim bin Umer. This is why he has copied some parts from the maghazi of Asim bin Umer in his book. Other then Ibn Ishaq, alwaqadi has also copied many narrations form Asim bin Umer. His most narrations are about the prophet’s life in Makka, and the earlier days of Islam.
Muhammad bin Ishaq met Asim bin Umer in Madina and until he stayed there he continuously attended the lessons of Asim bin Umer. This is why he has copied some parts from the maghazi of Asim bin Umer in his book. Other then Ibn Ishaq, alwaqadi has also copied many narrations form Asim bin Umer. His most narrations are about the prophet’s life in Makka, and the earlier days of Islam.
Sharjeel bin Saad
Sharjeel bin Saad (died 123 AH) was a freed slave, and belonged to the southern Arabia but his most of the time was spend in Madina. It is said that he had a life of more then hundred years. Those companions of prophet form which he has taken the narrations include Zaid bin Harris, Abu Huraira, and abu Saeed Alhazry. Like Asim bin Umair he also had great interest in seerah and maghazi. There is also a chance that he had taken the material for maghazi from Urwah bin Alzubair.
Ibn-e-Shahab Zahry
Muhammad bin Ubaid bin Shahab Alzahry (51 – 124 AH) was a great tabyiee. He was specially popular for writing and editing hadith, tafseer, fiqh, history and maghazi. He spend his earlier times in Madina and took the benefit from the company of Aban bin Usman, Urwah bin Zubair, Saeed bin Almseeb, Ali bin Husain etc.
Ammam Zahri was requested to write a book on seerah by Khalid bin Abdullah Alqusra. Zahri fulfilled this request heartily. That book is now not present but its references are found in the later books of seerah.
Ammam Zahri was requested to write a book on seerah by Khalid bin Abdullah Alqusra. Zahri fulfilled this request heartily. That book is now not present but its references are found in the later books of seerah.
Muhammad bin Ishaq
Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Ysaar bin Kayar (85 – 151AH) was the first seerah writer whose book “Kitab Almaghazi” has reached us with most of its part in its original form. It is his popularity that dint let the attention go to people prior to him. His book is popular with the names like “Kitab Almaghazi wa alseer” and “ Kitaab alseerah wa almubtada wal maghazi”. Most part of this book is saved by Abn Hashaam in his book “Seeraht-e-Rasool”.
Muhammad bin Ishaq was also born in Mwali family. His father Ishaq bin Yassar and his uncle Moosa bin Yassar also had very deep interest in hadith. Ishaq was the student of Urwah bin zubair. So he had the facility to extract seerah from hadith. Muhammad bin Ishaq kept contact with Madina’s popular tabiyeen, Asim bin Umer, Abdullh bin Abi Bakkar and Ibn Shahaab Zahri. So most of the hadith in his book was from these three. He took benefit from 114 teacher amongst which more then hundred were form Madina. Similarly the number of his students were also very huge, amongst which fifteen students narrated his book. The most authentic narration is by salma bin alafzal.
Muhammad bin Ishaq was also born in Mwali family. His father Ishaq bin Yassar and his uncle Moosa bin Yassar also had very deep interest in hadith. Ishaq was the student of Urwah bin zubair. So he had the facility to extract seerah from hadith. Muhammad bin Ishaq kept contact with Madina’s popular tabiyeen, Asim bin Umer, Abdullh bin Abi Bakkar and Ibn Shahaab Zahri. So most of the hadith in his book was from these three. He took benefit from 114 teacher amongst which more then hundred were form Madina. Similarly the number of his students were also very huge, amongst which fifteen students narrated his book. The most authentic narration is by salma bin alafzal.
Ibn Hashaam
Abu Muhammad Abdul Malik bin Hashaam bin Ayoob Al hamery (died 213 or 218 AH) will live forever due to his remarkable book “Seeraht-e-Rasool Allah”, because this book had the pride to reach us completely in its original form. This book is in fact a better version of the book by Ibn Ishaq.
Waqadi
Waqadi enjoyed the company of popular hadith writers like Malik bin Anas, Muammar bin Rashid, Abu Muashar Alsindi, and Abi Jahreeh. He was also interested in fiqh, hadith, maghazi and history.
These are the four books of Waqadi that are about seerah
These are the four books of Waqadi that are about seerah
1. Tareekh al Maghazi wal Mabas
2. Azwaj Alnabi
3. Wafat Alnabi
4. Alseerah.
There are some other books by Waqadi that are basically about history but contains many imortant seerah topics.
2. Azwaj Alnabi
3. Wafat Alnabi
4. Alseerah.
There are some other books by Waqadi that are basically about history but contains many imortant seerah topics.
Other writers:
There are countless other writers who contributed in the seerah writing. Names of some are given here:
> Abu Maasher Alsindi
> Mutamar Suleman bin Tarkhan
> Muhammad bin Saad
> Abu Maasher Alsindi
> Mutamar Suleman bin Tarkhan
> Muhammad bin Saad
Some important books:
> Sharaf Almustafa by Hafiz Abu Saeed Abdulmalik
> Seerah Ibn Abdulber by Ammam Abu Umer Yousaf bin Abdulbar
> Alrwooz Alanaf by Qasim Abdulrehman
> Sharaf Almustafa by Hafiz Abdulrehman ibn Jozi
> Seerah ibn Abi Tay by Yahya bin Hameeda
> Seerah Gazroni by Sheikh Zaheer-ud-din Ali
> Khalish Alseer by Muhib al deen Ahmad
> Seerah Damyaty by Hafiz Abdul Momen Aldmiyaty
> Seerah Khalati by Alauldeen Bin Muhammad Alkhallati
> Ayoon Alasar by Abu Fattah bin Muhammad
4. Books of history
Another important source of seerah is the books of Islamic history. Basically these are not the books of seerah but these are the description of happenings and events about Islamic world’s leaders, important personalities and Muslim countries. But while describing all this they also talk about the founder of Islam, his life, his achievements and his deeds. In these books of history the biography of Prophet Muhammad is described, somewhere briefly and somewhere in detail. In the old books of history some narrations are those that are similar to those that are found in books of maghazi. But some are those that are found explicitly in the books of history only. This is why these books are considered as an important source of seerah. There are many books written about Islamic history but regarding seerah of the prophet Muhammad SAW most important are those which describe a lot about prophet’s personality. Some description of such books follows.
The earliest people who wrote books about Islamic history are Abu Maasher Alsindhee (died 170 AH), Waqadi (died 207 AH) and Madayeene (died 225AH). Abu Maasher had great interest in history along with seerah and maghazi, but unfortunately we lost his book about history along with his other books. Some parts of his books were saved in the books of Tibree.
Ibn Nadeem has talked bout twenty seven books that are written by Waqadi. These books are about different aspects of Islamic history, but one book “Kitab Alkabeer” is most important. This book contains events that occurred till 179 AH. This book is also not found any more but some parts of it are copied in the book of Tibree. Other then this there is another book of Waqadi named “Kitab Altabqaat” which contains seerah of the prophet and some history about prophet’s companions and Tabeyeen. A large portion of this book is saved by Ibn saad in his book “Tabqaat ul kabeer”.
Madayeene is another popular historian, who wrote seerah and maghazi. He also wrote about the history of Abaasies. Ibn Nadeem says that the number of books by Madayeene is about 245.
Some other books and names of their writers are as under:
q Tabqat al kabeer by Muhammad Ibn Saar (died 230 AH)
q Tareekh Sagheer-o-Kabeer by Amman Bukhari (died 256 AH)
q Kitab Al Maarraf by Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Muslim (213 – 270 AH)
q Tareekh-e-Yaqoobi by Ahmen bin abi Yaqoob (died 284 AH)
q Tareekh-e-Tibree by Abu Jaffer Muhammad bin Jareer Al Tibree (235 – 310 AH)
q Tareekh Ibn Abe Kazeema by Ahmad bin Abi Kazeema (205 – 299 AH)
q Tambeeh wa Ashraf by Abu Alhassan bin Alhusain bin Ali Almasoodi (died 345 AH)
q Almuntzim by Abu Alfarah Abdulrehman ibn Jozi (510 – 597 AH)
q Tareekh Al kamil by Az Aldeen Ali bin Muhammad Aljazree(555 – 630AH)
q Tareekh Abu Alfida by Amad-udeen Abu Alfida Ismaeel bin Ali (672 – 732 AH)
q Tareekh Alislam by Shams-addeen Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Ahmad Almaroof beh allama Zehby (673 – 748 AH)
q Al badaiya and Alnhaya by Ibn Kaseer (710 – 774 AH)
q Tareekh Ibn Khaldoon by Abu Zaid Abdul Rehman bin Muhammad bin Khaldoon Almaghrabi (732 – 808 AH)
q Amraaa Alasmaa by Ahmen bin Ali Taqi Aldeen Almaqrezi (776 – 845 AH)
5. Books of Tafseer
Another important source of seerah is books of tafseer, written for the clarification of Quran. The Quran is the best source to know about prophet’s seerah. When those parts of Quran are described in detail that refers to life of Prophet Muhammad, many aspects of seerah are also discussed. These tafaseer also prove to be very informative when we want to know that what were the times, reasons and places when these ayaah of Quran were reavealed. This is why the books of tafaseer are said to be a precious fountain for the knowledge of seerah
The tafseer writing started in the times of companions of prophet Muhammad SAW. The companions, who were mufasireen, were not many in number but there narrations are important because whatever they said was what they heard from the prophet directly or indirectly.
Amman Jallal Adeen Syoty writes that among the companions of prophet ten were popular as muffasirs which are
q Abu Bakar RA
q Umer RA
q Usman RA
q Ali RA (the four caliphs)
q Abdullah bin Masood RA
q Abdullah bin Abbas RA
q Abye bin Kaab RA
q Zaid bin Sabit RA
q Abu Mosa Ashery RA
q Abdullah bin Zubair RA
Other then these some other companions are also known for the tafseer of Quran although their number is comparatively less. The following names are very important in this respect:
q Anas bin Malik RA
q Abu Huraira RA
q Abdullah bin Umer RA
q Jabbir bin Abdullah RA
q Abdullah bin Umro Alaas
q Ayisha Sadeeqa RA
Tafaseer of times of Sahaba
The most populer of the tafseer of times of sahaba is “Tafseer Ibn Abaas” by Abdullah bin Abaas (died 76 AH)
The second important tafseer is by Abye bin Kab Ansari (died 19 AH)
No one wrote any complete tafseer of Quran in the times of sahaba. The proper work on writing tafaseer was started in the second century AH.
Tafaseer in the times of Tabaeen and afterwards:
Tabiaeen were the people who learned form sahaba. And taba tabyeen were those who learned for the tabeyeen. Much work on writing tafseer was done in there times.
The second important tafseer is by Abye bin Kab Ansari (died 19 AH)
No one wrote any complete tafseer of Quran in the times of sahaba. The proper work on writing tafaseer was started in the second century AH.
Tafaseer in the times of Tabaeen and afterwards:
Tabiaeen were the people who learned form sahaba. And taba tabyeen were those who learned for the tabeyeen. Much work on writing tafseer was done in there times.
6. Books of Asma-Alrajaal
Another source of seerah is the books that are present in numbers of hundreds and thousands, which are developed by the historian with a great effort and struggle. The life history of the prophet is describe by the Sahaba and these narrations were heard and noted by tabiyeen, so it was important to collect information about these sahaba and tabiyeen. According to Mulana Shiblee Naumani “It was important to find out that the person who came in silsila-e-riwayatt, who were thay, what did they used to do?, what were there daily routines? How was there repute? How was there memory? Were they educated? - hundreds of hadith writters spend their lives for this task. They went to each cities, met the narraters, lived with then and find out each detail about them. Those who were not present in that time, the information about those was asked from the people who used to live with them. As a result an art was born with the help of which now we can know the life histories of about more then 100,000 people”.
The books in which these life histories were collected were said to be Alasma Alrijaal. It is said that the one who begin this art was Shaba bin Hajaaj and the one who first ever wrote a book like these was Yahya bin saeed.
A brief list of these book follows:
q Tabqat Alkubra by AlIbn Saad
q Tawareekh by Ammam Bukhari
q Kitaab Al jarah wal Tadeel by Allama Ahmad bin Abdullah Alajly
q Astiyab fe Maarfa Al ashaab by Hafiz Abu Umro Yosab bin Abdulber
q Alkamal fe Maarfa Al rijaal by Hafiz Abdul Ghani bin Abdul Wahid
q Asad Alghaba Fe Maarata Alashaab by Allama Ibn Aseer
q Tehzeeb Alkamaal Fe Maarfa Alrijaal by Hafiz Jamal Ad-deen
q Mezaan Alaatadal fe Naqad Alrijaal by Ammam Zehbi
q Tehzeeb Altehzeeb by Ibn-e-hajar Asqalani
7. Books of Shuma’l
Another source of seerah are the books that are written by the appearance of prophet Muhammad, his habits, his daily routine and his lifestyle. All these topics are also discussed in some books of hadith but in some books only such topics are chosen to be discussed.
Kitab Al-Shuma’l by Ammam Tarimzi is the first book on this topic. Similarly “Kitab-ul Shiffa” by Qazi Ayaaz Undlisi is said to be the biggest book of Shuma’l.
8. Books of Dala’l
These are the books about the miracles and the spiritual achievements of prophet. Sayed Sulaman Nadwi has written about numerous such books which are about some specific aspect of the prophet’s life. For example
q Dla’l Alnaboowa by Ibn – Qattada
q Dla’l Alnaboowa by Abu Ishaq Harbi
q Dla’l Alnaboowa by Ammam Abo Bakkar Baqeeha
q Dla’l Alnaboowa by Abo Inam Isfahani
q Dla’l Alnaboowa by Ammam Mastaghfari
q Dla’l Alnaboowa by Abu Qasim Ismail Isfahani
and
q Khasaes Alkubra by Amam Sayooti which is the most authentic book on this topic.
Some people have made miracles of Prophet Muhammad SAW as the topic of there book. In this respect the best book ever written was by Allama Jallal-ud-Deen Balqeeni who was teacher of Ammam Sayooti. The name of the book was “Mujazaat – Alnabi SAW”.
9. Books of Asaar and Akhbaar
Another sources of seerah are those books that are written about the circumstances of Madia and Makka. In these book, along with the state of affairs of these cities, many details about the prophet’s life, and the sacred location related to prophet was also included. These book act as are preview of situations that occurred in the life of prophet. Their writers are appreciable because they have done a lengthy research for collection of data about the ancient cities, the tribes that were living there and their way of life.
The oldest book written in this respect is “Akhbar-e-Madina” by Allama Azraqi. This book is said to be very authenticated source for information about the cities. Sayed Suleman Nadwi has mentioned some names of books which are
q Akbar-e-Madina by Ummer bin Shabba
q Akbar-e-Makka by Fakahee
q Akbar-e-Madina by Ibn-eZabala.
10. Ma’asrana poetry
Another source of information about prophet’s life is the poetry that was done for admiration of the prophet’s personality. The popular poets who wrote about prophet at that time were:
q Abu Talib
q Aasha
q Kaab bin Zaheer
q Ahsaan bin Sabit
q Abdullah bin rooha
q Abdullah bin Zubraa
q Kaab bin Malik
q Fazala Laishi
q Abaas bin Mardaas
It is said that there is no poet who dint wrote any stanza about the prophet Muhammad SAW. This is confirmed when we look at the poetry done by the 4 caliphs, and prophet’s other close relatives. But the poetry that is helpful in knowing seerah is done by the people whose names are mentioned above.
Failure of Democracy in Pakistan?
Irshad Ahmad Haqqani
(* The writer is one of the most widely read columnists in Pakistan. He served as Federal Minister of Information and Media Development during the interim government of Malik Meraj Khalid from November 1996 to February 1997.)
In order to understand the plight of democracy in Pakistan, one needs to remember the circumstances into which Pakistan came into being. Its establishment as an independent country was the result of a political movement of Muslims of the Subcontinent, no doubt, but those Muslims were not politically organized. In fact, they had no political platform during the initial period. Though they acquired one in 1906 in the form of the Muslim League, this group was not terribly effective until 1934, when Jinnah joined it. Most of those who assumed leadership in the Muslim League and rose to power later in the newly independent country neither felt any real attachment to the norms of democracy nor showed any genuine commitment to Islamic teachings. The persistence of feudal culture throughout the country after independence (even to today) also helped nondemocratic forces exert their influence and poses a continuing and formidable challenge to the progress of democracy in Pakistan.
In addition to this internal dimension, the country faces enormous security pressures due to multifaceted problems with India. As State survival became the country's primary concern, the military assumed a greater than average importance. Then, in the wake of weak political leadership, the military's top brass began to assert its centrality in matters of governance and political management. One reason for the military's frequent and prolonged stints in power is that military rulers have managed to secure substantial external backing for themselves.
Unfortunately, Pakistani politicians have not utilized the interludes between periods of military rule to establish a civilian government. Instead, those who prospered "at the pleasure" of military dictators allowed Parliament to simply "rubber-stamp" the military's initiatives. Rather than serving the cause of democracy, Pakistani politicians have chosen instead to curry favor from the military's top brass and its backers in Washington. By indulging in corruption, these politicians have not only smeared their own reputations but have also given rise to increasing public disenchantment with politics and the political process.
The state of the judiciary is as dismal as that of other branches of the Pakistani government. Apart from a few bold judgments, the higher courts have played a pliant role to suit the whims and notions of those in power. Military dictators and civilians too required that the courts comply with their demands.
The country's media, however, holds promise both for itself and for the nation. In the face of restrictions and persecution, it has managed to survive and uphold the cause of freedom of expression.
In spite of the many obstacles and failures in the democratic process, the people of Pakistan have again and again shown confidence in democracy. Given the opportunity, the public has risen against the military's intervention in politics and forced them back to their barracks. The people want to see Pakistan emerge as a democratic, law-abiding country. Pakistanis have as much potential to live in a peaceful democracy as people of any other nation, and this road it must take. Developing democracy, however, requires time, which it must be given without interruption.
Another phase of local elections recently concluded,1 giving rise to both expectations and apprehensions. While the President, Prime Minister and spokespersons of the ruling coalition declared that these elections were an important milestone in the history of democracy in Pakistan, the opposition expressed serious concerns about the exercise. Though the rulers thought it prudent to hold these elections on a non-party basis, political parties of all hues — ruling and opposition — participated with full vigor.
With all the contradictory assertions and allegations, one faces the inevitable question: Is Pakistan on the road to democracy? If so, then why hasn't it taken root in the country?
While there may be more than one answer and perspective, it is important to keep in mind how Pakistan came into being. Did the conditions that are a pre-requisite for the growth of democratic culture exist or not?
Muslims in the Subcontinent
After being in power in the Subcontinent for over 800 years, Muslims found themselves on the wrong side of the political equation when British colonial forces overthrew them and assumed direct power in the middle of the nineteenth century. The new rulers subjugated their predecessors and deliberately kept them backward in all areas. Although Hindus too were the subjects of colonial rule, they had not been overthrown by their new masters and so were not as averse to them, or their views and policies, as were the Muslims. Indignant at having been removed from power and proud of their values, Muslims boycotted everything English. They were averse to modern education and even against the learning of the English language. Hindus, on the other hand, took to the modern approach more easily. Thus, Muslims began lagging behind their Hindu fellows, who outnumbered them in all fields of human activity.
Since the failure of the Mutiny of 1857, Muslims have also been suspected of being "disloyal." They lacked a political platform of their own from which to express their views. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (d. 1898) had only relative success convincing colonial rulers of the reasons for Muslim unrest and persuading Muslims to desist from active politics and focus instead on acquiring modern educations. He advised Muslims against joining the Indian National Congress (formed in 1885), which was ostensibly a neutral platform for "interaction" between the English and their subjects, but a clear bias toward the Hindu population was evident from the day of its inception.2
Congress struggled to achieve self-rule and independence, but in a way that not only left Muslims hopeless about their status and rights in a free and united India but also made them suspicious about the party's intentions due to its position on issues vital to Muslims, such as separate electorates, the partition of Bengal, and Muslim leaders' efforts for Hindu-Muslim unity. This led to the creation of the Muslim League in 1906 as a party that aimed specifically to represent Muslims.
The Birth and Rise of the Muslim League
The Muslim League would not become a party representing the masses and espousing modern political thought and trends for over a quarter century. It was only when Jinnah joined in 1934 that it began to function as intended. With a solid understanding of the existing situation in the Subcontinent and grasping global trends of liberation and the right of self-determination of all peoples, Jinnah both defined the distinct nature of the Muslim identity and called for a separate homeland for them where they could live according to their own values and way of life.
Pitted in a political battle, Congress and the Muslim League held positions that were becoming increasingly irreconcilable. To resolve the impasse, Lord Wavell, then Viceroy of India, convened a conference at Simla in June 1945 at which it was decided that elections would be held to ascertain who represents whom, and to what extent. Earlier, in the elections in 1937 held under the India Act of 1935, the Muslim League had been unable to prove that it was the sole representative of India's Muslim population while Congress had succeeded in forming its governments in six provinces under the eye of its central leadership.
Early Political Exigencies
Preparing for the 1945–46 elections, Jinnah welcomed "everybody who was anybody" in politics into the Muslim League, but particularly people from the Muslim-majority provinces. Needless to say, he had to compromise in one way or another to enlist Muslim support for the party. The Jinnah-Sikandar Pact is one example of his approach in this regard. On the other hand, local influentials and vested interests in the Muslim-majority areas who wanted only to secure their stake in any future setup were now eager to join the Muslim League, since its ranks were swelling and fortunes rising under Jinnah's dynamic leadership. Many of those who joined the League at this stage did not have any real connection with democratic values and norms. Unfortunately, the undemocratic elements are still at the helm of affairs in the party.
The two parties that assumed power in August 1947 in the two newly independent states of Pakistan and India were poles apart in terms of their political growth, democratic culture, political acumen, and the character of their leadership. Leadership of the Congress espoused democratic values, a nationalist sentiment, and secularism, but many of those who assumed leadership in the Muslim League neither felt any real attachment to the norms of democracy nor showed any commitment to Islamic teachings.
While Nehru's contribution in promoting a democratic culture after Independence in India cannot be denied, the fact is that it was not just Nehru but almost all congressional leaders and supporters who upheld the notion of democracy. With or without Nehru, democracy was set to take root in India. In sharp contrast, those who came to rule in Pakistan were not particularly open to democracy; they believed in personal cults and group interests, not in political institutions or systems. They could not really fathom the idea that common people can be the final arbiters of their own destinies.
Non-democratic Practices and Consequences
It was because the democratic mind-set was so alien to Pakistanis that it took nine years for the country to have a constitution of its own, whereas India achieved this end in just one year. It was not a coincidence that the tradition of time-bound elections took root in India from the very beginning, whereas it took 23 years for Pakistan to hold its first country-wide election — which, ironically, resulted in the bifurcation of the country into Pakistan and Bangladesh. In large part, the secessionist strain in Bangladesh (then the East Pakistan province) was encouraged by the non-democratic attitude of political leaders from West Pakistan. These politicians refused to accept the majority and its right to rule, and instead tried to impose their writ by force, inadvertently paving the way for the separation of the entire region.
These politicians had exhibited similar behavior earlier. In the 1951 elections in Punjab and the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), the sanctity of the ballot box was sacrificed for the sake of political interests and coming to power by any means. In the 1954 elections in East Pakistan, the Jagtu (United) Front won an overwhelming majority, but its government was sacked within a few months and governor rule imposed.
It is an unfortunate reality that those who came to rule the country from the outset were not particularly fond of or trained in democratic traditions. Jinnah only lived for about a year after the creation of Pakistan. His towering persona had overshadowed the weaknesses of local politicians and the fledgling system, but these were exposed with his passing.
Feudal Culture
The existence of a feudal-like system in Pakistan continues to present a formidable obstacle to the progress of democracy in the country. In India, feudalism and landlordism were brought to an end soon after Independence. This ended the poor's financial dependence on feudal lords. The lower classes tasted new freedoms, which in turn supported the spread of democracy in the country. The situation in Pakistan was quite the opposite. Much of the Muslim League leadership, especially from the areas that subsequently became part of Pakistan, was composed of wealthy and powerful landlords and feudal and tribal leaders. Their interests lay in maintaining the status quo; they neither had any particular affinity for democratic values nor did they care about improving the lot of the masses. Since local feudals and chieftains control government machinery, in rural areas in particular, law enforcement agencies take more interest in enforcing the writ of the feudal than that of the law. The feudal class not only still exists but has gained in strength and influence in Pakistani politics. Many of those who occupy prominent positions in political parties, ruling and opposition alike, belong to this class, and their interests lie in the perpetuation of the present feudalistic system.
It is an unfortunate fact that feudal and tribal chiefs have frustrated efforts toward improvement in the area of education. They even opposed the development of infrastructure for fear that this would lead to people's emancipation and progress — the same people who had hitherto been their hapless subjects. The incidence of violence and crime against women in rural areas is a part of this larger picture. Though not limited to women, a particularly ugly fact is that they are often humiliated as a means of subjugating and suppressing the men in the feudal's dominion.
Politics has become a game for the rich and this is a result of the power and influence that feudals enjoy in the country. It is almost impossible for a middle-class individual to consider standing in elections. Thus has the feudal system impeded the growth of democracy in Pakistan.
Military Intervention
With a weak democratic culture and group of politicians (in addition to Indian hostility against Pakistan), the military's top brass found an excuse to meddle in national political affairs. The military has ruled the country for more than half of Pakistan's existence. Even when it is not ruling, military leaders call the shots from behind the scenes and play a "guardian role" in the affairs of the government.
Military interference in Pakistani politics began in the early 1950s when Army Chief General Ayub Khan helped the President dislodge weak political leaders one after another and ultimately assumed power himself by imposing martial law in 1958. The seeds for this had been sown when Khan was appointed Defense Minister "in uniform" in 1954.3
The military's involvement in politics is a major reason why a democratic political culture has not developed in Pakistan. Weak political leadership, India's hostility toward Pakistan and the lingering problem in Jammu and Kashmir have necessitated that Pakistan maintain a large and powerful army.
External Support for Military Juntas
America's patronage of Pakistan's military rulers has also contributed to the inability of democracy to take root in the country. In the face of Indian hostility, Pakistan thought it could best meet security needs by forming an alliance with America and participating in U.S.-led Western treaties (SEATO and CENTO) in the 1950s. Despite all its talk of democracy, the U.S. thinks its own interests are better served when the military has a very prominent role in Pakistan's national matters. This is because the U.S. finds it easy to deal with an unelected dictator — a single person surrounded by sycophants — rather than an elected political leadership that represents the whole nation. The history of external powers' interest and intervention in Pakistan's internal matters is long and sad. If we ignore it, we do so at our peril; the way to overcome it is through the political process.
The U.S. patronized General Ayub Khan so that it would have an ally in the region. It wanted to check the spread of communism, of which Soviet Russia and China were the two main protagonists. Also, India was leaning toward cooperation with the Soviets. The U.S. fully backed General Zia-ul-Haq with respect to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Pakistan's support to the Afghan resistance. This is the U.S. strategy even today. Declaring its attack on Afghanistan in October 2001 as a "war against terrorism," the U.S. enlisted General Pervez Musharraf's support as a "close ally" in this war. Before this, the General did not enjoy favor from the U.S. The perception in Pakistan is that as long as the U.S. needs the General, it will continue to support him regardless of how that affects democracy in Pakistan.
While the U.S. has supported Pakistan's military dictators, successive civilian rulers were never in favor. For example, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, in spite of his secularist thinking, was not in America's good graces because he started a nuclear program. Then there were the crushing sanctions the U.S. imposed against Pakistan throughout the period of civilian rule from the late 1980s to the late 90s — a whole decade — when Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were the elected leaders of the country.
Pakistan first faced martial law in 1958. Although military ruler Ayub Khan employed all means to create an impression of mass support for his rule, he failed to provide justification for being in office and had to relinquish power in the face of the massive agitation and political antagonism against him. His was a despotic rule; the constitution he devised was aimed to perpetuate his own power. He introduced EBDO (Elective Bodies Disqualification Ordinance), a presidential system and maneuvered to defeat Jinnah's sister (Fatima Jinnah) — and with this the will of the people in the presidential elections of 1965. In spite of all this, he had to abdicate power in 1968. What is worth noting is that the subsequent transfer of power did not take place according to the constitution he had devised. It is unfortunate that his departure did not result in democracy in Pakistan. He was succeeded by another despot, General Yahya Khan, who presided over the tragic separation of East Pakistan — reaping what Ayub Khan had sown there for himself.
Political Bickering
The chaotic reign of General Yahya Khan ended when Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto assumed power. Although he was an elected Prime Minister, he held the dubious distinction of being the Civilian Chief Martial Law Administrator. He had been Foreign Minister with Ayub Khan, and had made the post a focus of public attention. His charismatic leadership and role in foreign and defense policies aside, Bhutto did not show any real interest in promoting a democratic culture in Pakistan either. Although his role in the consensual 1973 Constitution has been greatly appreciated, he himself trampled its sanctity. He not only persecuted his political opponents but refused to tolerate dissent, even from within party ranks.
Thus, in spite of civilian rule from 1972 to 77, democracy failed to take hold in Pakistan. The constitution was not respected in either spirit or letter. Smaller provinces were restless and complained about the federal government's attitude. The situation came to a head in the province of Balochistan — army action was mounted there. This might have quelled the opposition at the time, but further boosted anti-Center sentiment. Ultimately, the provincial governments in Balochistan and NWFP were dissolved (The Balochistan government was dissolved, while the NWFP government resigned in protest).4
The performance of the opposition from the platform of the Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) too became a cause for despondency and dejection. The allegation against the leadership of the Alliance is that it deliberately tried to sabotage talks with the government of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, that it invited martial law (1977) and obtained ministerial positions separately after differences developed among its own ranks. The formation of MRD led by the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) could not provide a platform for political culture. Along with those in its ranks who were playing the game of the establishment, the MRD was criticized by those who had earlier formed the PNA against the PPP. This mutual recrimination adversely affected the position of all political parties in the eyes of the people.
Although apparently facing no political challenge but in search of legitimacy for his rule and to continue as president, General Zia-ul-Haq held elections in 1985 on a non-party basis — like the recently concluded elections for local bodies. While these elections paved the way for democracy, they also strengthened the biraderi system and gave rise to parochial, ethnic and tribal prejudices. The tenure of Prime Minister Junejo (1985–88) proved better in many respects than the previous governments. Martial law came to an end — although the 8th Amendment provided indemnity for measures taken by the martial law regime, political parties were revived, and there were greater freedoms of speech and dissent. But when the Premier began to assert himself, the President (General Zia-ul-Haq, who was also the Chief of Army) dismissed him.
This relatively better period of civilian rule in Pakistan was followed by a game of musical chairs between two other civilian leaders — Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Between 1988 and 1999, both assumed power in two stints each, interspersed with caretaker governments. Neither showed any interest in promoting democracy in the country and instead indulged in personal aggrandizement and cronyism. It is sad that both failed to show any real commitment to democracy. This provided another excuse for the military to call the shots from behind the scene for about a decade and then jump directly into the foray and reassume power.5
The people of Pakistan feel a kind of disillusionment with democracy and its suitability for governing and running the affairs of their state. A number of questions such as, Should we imitate the Western model of democracy or have a vision of our own? have been raised to create confusion. What Pakistan needs is not to question the system but to start with a system and continue with it. In modern times, no system has proved better than democracy.
It is clear that democracy in Pakistan will be different from the Western model. Here, the legislature will never have unlimited power to legislate on any issue, as the legislatures in Western democracies have; they will be guided by Islamic teachings. Here, sovereignty will be recognized as Allah's and people will enjoy power as His vicegerents. In Muslim democracies, the legislature cannot declare halal what has been declared haram, and vice versa. But in remaining matters — such as adult franchise; time-bound elections; political freedoms; separate jurisdiction of the Parliament, Judiciary, and the Executive branches of state; human rights; etc. — there is nothing inherent in democracy that conflicts with the message of Islam. The demands of Islamic teachings and tenets have been enshrined in every constitution Pakistan has ever had. This is why it is regarded as a sacred document. It is a covenant between the different segments and classes of society. A civilized nation respects and obeys its constitution in all situations. This enables it to face the ups and downs of circumstance and continue with its collective national life. This ability, in turn, provides confidence and a sense of security as well as highlighting its distinct identity among other nations. Pakistan needs these things and therefore needs to take democracy seriously.
Sovereign nations achieve stability, strength and power not because of a few individuals but because of strong institutions, stable systems, and well-rooted traditions. This is a process of evolution. It may be that the political process and democracy in Pakistan have failed again and again and that they cannot bring stability to the country. However, the answer is not in giving up on the democratic process, but in adhering to it more closely.
Democratic institutions and tradition take root only through a process of evolution. The sapling of democracy may take root quickly in one place if conditions allow, but it must be given time to grow, even if it appears to be taking too long. From the very start, the situation in Pakistan has not been favorable for the evolution of democracy. The country faced crises on both internal and external fronts. Internally, it was weak and faced a host of issues; externally it faced the hostility of its much larger neighbor. But this is no excuse for military intervention in politics. Observant people agree that if the army had resisted the urge to jump into the foray in 1958, there would have been no subsequent periods of martial law because Pakistani political institutions would have gained in strength and maturity, assumed their proper role and averted the conditions under which the military intervened in national affairs. Since democracy was effectively killed in its infancy, the later stages of maturity and experience could not be reached.
This is how we should view the flaws and weaknesses of political leadership even now. Maturity will come with the passage of time, as will political stability and economic prosperity. Traditions need time to take root, but they will. Pakistan is not a special case in that cannot be trusted and will therefore be barred from evolving. In a free environment, we can express our values and reflect these in our institutions. But we must realize there is no escaping some degree of trial and error.
As far as the people of the country are concerned, they have shown their confidence in the democratic tradition time and again. When General Yahya lifted the ban from political activities in January 1970, the whole country saw a great enthusiasm and increased political activism — even though it had been in the throes of chaos for five months in the preceding year. The year-long political electoral campaign remained peaceful. Similarly, the electioneering of 1977 saw great tension and agitation, yet elections were peaceful, as was the PNA-led campaign against alleged electoral rigging. It was similar in the 2002 elections. This shows that Pakistanis are a normal political people and can go as far on the road to democracy as any other nation can. This road we must take; we cannot do without it.
Role of the Judiciary
A major factor for the frequent interruptions in the democratic process is the tendency of military governments to devise new constitutions and then abrogation them. Those politicians who prosper under the military's umbrella do not consider the exercise of constitution-making more than a game and play to serve vested interests while adjusting to the mood of the "high command." This is one reason why the constitution in Pakistan has not achieved the sanctity that is its due, and which is accorded to it in civilized societies.
With this approach, those who happen to rule the country see no reason for concern over the uncertain and unclear status of the Constitution of 1973 these days. To them, the country is functioning quite well despite all this fuss and mess. Even if the constitution is abrogated or changed tomorrow, they hold, there would be no catastrophe. Observant people cannot help showing concern over such an attitude. A country's constitution reflects its political philosophy, its way of life, and its views on governance. It is, in fact, an agreement between the different classes and segments of society, regions, and administrative units. All segments of society look to it to arrive at decisions with consensus.
In this regard, the role of the judiciary is very important. The judiciary, needless to say, plays a vital role in the promotion and consolidation of democracy in any country. But it has not been given the freedom that it needs to play its due role in Pakistan.
If the judiciary is to play its due role in the promotion of democracy in the country, then its credibility must be restored. The government's power to appoint judges should be eliminated; it should be the Supreme Judicial Council that reviews the cases of judges' appointment and promotion and then refers them to the Prime Minister and President for action. The judiciary's autonomy in economic matters is important so that it can dispense justice among the people and the government, between the Center and the Provinces, and among the Provinces themselves. Judges' tenures should be secure so that they can function without insecurity, fear or outside influence. There should be restrictions preventing judges' appointment to a profitable post after retirement. The government should desist from any overture that gives the impression, no matter how slight, that it seeks to influence or direct the Pakistan's courts.
Until the government does this and the people see and believe that this it is so, the dream of rule of law and the prevalence of justice will remain elusive.
The absence of a democratic culture and tradition of rule of law are Pakistan's biggest problems. If we do not address these issues directly, the state of Pakistan will continue to suffer. The need of the hour is to establish a rule of law that applies to all, the rulers and the ruled, and that includes a prohibition against military intervention.
The Present
Despite the people's commitment and the role the media has and is playing, it is sad that the present political scenario is no better than the past. There exists in Pakistan only the appearance of democracy; the country has a long way to go to actually be a democracy.
President General Pervez Musharraf has repeatedly said that democracy has taken root in Pakistan. He points to the freedom the press enjoys, the existence of a functioning Parliament, and the accountability of officials, along with the enhanced role of women in national politics. He has also remarked that it might seem strange that he, being a person in uniform, talks about democracy and insists he has established a lasting system of democracy, but he claims he has and that to do so is his Providence-ordained task.6
No matter what Musharraf says, the people of Pakistan can see that an Army Chief has become their ruler, that he is equipped with vast powers under the 8th and 17th Amendments7 to the Constitution, that he created a majority by cobbling together different elements in the aftermath of the 2002 elections, and that whoever might be occupying the seat of the Prime Minister — Mir Zafarullah Jamali, Chaudhri Shujaat Hussain, or Mr. Shaukat Aziz — he is the one who makes that appointment. These Prime Ministers apparently assumed their offices with the Parliament's majority's vote, but there is no illusion as to who enjoys the real power. As for the degree of freedom of the press, this is neither a sudden occurrence nor a gift from anyone. It is the press itself that has protected its freedom and secured its place for itself.
General Musharraf's assertions are not new. What is more important, however, is that while he reiterated them in New York (September 2005) during his recent visit, and said that a President should not be in uniform, he declined to give assurance that he would give up his uniform in 2007. When pressed, he said that he would "cross the bridge on reaching it." This is what he used to say when asked whether he would give up his uniform by December 31, 2004 (according to an agreement with the MMA in the form of the 17th Amendment). The bridge was there and the whole world saw how he crossed it! His statement that "no U.S. official, including President Bush, asked him to doff his uniform" indicates that the chances he will remove his uniform are slim, even in 2007. Musharraf counts the recently concluded local bodies elections as an indication that democracy is well on its course in the country. Such assertions, in spite of all the allegations against the transparency of these elections, suggest that the same drama will be repeated in the next general elections.
THE FUTURE
What is the future of democracy in Pakistan? In his recent book, Stephen P. Cohen talks about possible scenarios for Pakistan in the future. In the first, "Continuation of Establishment-dominated oligarchic system," he says: "Over the next five or six years: do not underestimate the capability of a small elite to manage a big country, but do not exaggerate their ability to work together and avert disaster." In his words, the outcome of such a scenario is: "Pakistan manipulates terrorist threat, Establishment searches for external alliances, nuclear and missile production continues despite weak economy, little movement in relations with India." In the second scenario, even if a political and democratic government is restored, it would remain weak and the military would continue to call the shots from behind the scenes.
The prospects for true democracy in Pakistan are apparently not very bright. The absence of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif has weakened their political parties. It is almost certain that the circle around these parties will be narrowed further before the next election, which may force the parties to boycott them. The government will also not allow the MMA (a political alliance of six religious parties) to benefit in any way from the vacuum. All this implies that the
Q-League (the ruling faction of the Muslim League) will be in a position to dominate the next Parliament as well.
The country is in danger of moving towards one-party rule under the umbrella of General Musharraf, who will secure for himself the right to continue in office with his uniform and even maneuver his unopposed election, and who will be content with his rule and its continuation at the cost of weakening all political forces in Pakistan except the Q-League and its allies.
The politically conscious people of Pakistan, however, cannot accept that Pakistan needs a democratic model in which the Army Chief becomes President, with a central and key role in the system and full concentration of powers in his hands, and in which notable political figures have been kept out and disallowed to play their due role.
If General Musharraf remains adamant about running a democracy under his thumb, and if his political allies continue to be opportunistic, wanting to see him President at the time of general elections in 2007, then forces in the opposition may wind up in a boycott of elections. Will this benefit the country? Obviously not.
The key to preventing political tension lies with General Musharraf himself. The first thing to do in this regard is to assure the people that the next elections will really be free and fair, and to encourage people to forget the past. A good start would be by appointing the next Chief Election Commissioner with the opposition's consent. Then, Benazir and Nawaz Sharif should be allowed to return and lead their party during elections. Political space should be provided to all political actors without prejudice and manipulation.
The people of Pakistan and their leaders need to believe that 'controlled' or 'compromised' democracy is not Pakistan's destiny; its progress lies in adherence to democracy with its well-established and very well-known norms. Although the military has come to occupy an important position in the political setup, acquiescing to it as "an immutable reality" and, then, compromising on principled positions does not behoove true democrats.
Endnotes Go to sectionTop of pageMuslims in the SubcontinentThe Birth and Rise of the Musl...Early Political ExigenciesNon-democratic Practices and C...Feudal CultureMilitary InterventionExternal Support for Military ...Political BickeringRole of the JudiciaryThe PresentThe Future?EndnotesUsers who read this article al...
Footnotes
* The writer is one of the most widely read columnists in Pakistan. He served as Federal Minister of Information and Media Development during the interim government of Malik Meraj Khalid from November 1996 to February 1997.
1. Elections for district governments in Pakistan were held in three phases; began in August and concluded in October 2005.
2. Congress claimed to represent all communities in India: Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Parsis,
Christians, etc. No doubt, prominent Muslim figures such as Badruddin Tyabji and Maulana Azad became its Presidents, but they remained mere figure-heads–Goakhale, Tilak, Gandhi, and Nehru were the men who really pulled the reins, directly or from the behind the scenes.
3. In order to secure a greater role in national affairs and legitimize it, the military has sought some kind of constitutional arrangement for its role in politics. General Zia was the first military ruler who proposed setting up of a National Security Council (NSC) for the top brass to share policy-making with civilian political leaders. He added Article 152-A to the 1973 Constitution through the Revival of Constitutional Order (RCO) in March 1985 to establish the NSC. The formation of NSC was opposed by most political circles and had to be dropped as part of the deal with the Parliament to get its approval for the revised version of RCO as the Eighth Constitutional Amendment in October 1985. Then, in his address at the Navy War College in October 1998, Army Chief General Jehangir Karamat underlined the need for creating an institutional arrangement at the highest level for devising effective policies for coping with ongoing economic drift and political management problems. Five days after his assumption of power, Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf announced formation of an NSC headed by the Chief Executive (the title he chose for himself). In December 2003, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) and the government signed an agreement for resolving the political impasse on the Legal Framework Order (LFO). One of the provisions of this agreement provided that the NSC would not be a constitutional body but would be set up through legislation. Other opposition parties stayed away from this agreement, which took the form of the 17th Amendment.
4. In addition, the government's ill-devised policies in the economic field created anxiety, unrest and instability. The policy of nationalization of industrial and educational institutions, for example, gave rise to widespread apprehensions that the government's continuation in office would result in increasing government control and squeeze the space for private business. The nationalization policy produced the worst situation of high inflation rate and declining purchasing-power. Inadvertently, the rulers not only invited public rage against themselves, but, to an extent, created a sort of disillusionment with democracy for they were democratically elected rulers!
5. Benazir Bhutto and her spouse have allegedly been involved in corruption on a massive scale, but the way the Accountability Bureau targeted them during the Nawaz era did not give to the common man the impression that the process of accountability was neutral or judicious. The process of 'victimization' against Benazir Bhutto has become so long and the moral and legal foundations on which it is based are so weak that, in spite of all the allegations against them, the former ruling couple has started winning sympathies in some hearts. The nation had risen in 1996–97 for establishing the tradition of judicious accountability, but the Nawaz government failed to give it a proper shape. This was a great disservice to the nation. If a neutral and credible machinery had been established for the purpose of accountability, this would have strengthened the notion of rule of law along with considerably reducing the level of corruption.
6. The claim of establishing a democratic setup according to Pakistan's peculiar ground realities is not new. General Musharraf is not the first to say so. General Ayub had similarly talked about basic democracy, controlled democracy and the system that better reflects the needs of the nation, etc. His system was a house of cards that vanished with his own removal from the scene. General Yahya too tried to give a so-called democratic constitution that actually revolved around his person. Zia-ul-Haq used at times Islam and at others made reference to a diary of Quaid-e-Azam to flout well-established democratic principles and continue with his Martial Law. When he had to hold elections in 1985, he held them on a non-party basis to keep the political parties out.
7. These Amendments are like a bargain in which measures taken during the Martial Law tenures were given indemnity in exchange for bringing an end to Martial Law rule. The 8th Amendment was passed in 1985 to lift Zia's Martial Law, while the 17th Amendment was passed in 2003, after an agreement between the government and the MMA (United Action Front), to fix a date for General Musharraf to give up his army post (in fact, either of the two offices he held: the President and the Army Chief) and pave way for real parliamentary democracy.
(* The writer is one of the most widely read columnists in Pakistan. He served as Federal Minister of Information and Media Development during the interim government of Malik Meraj Khalid from November 1996 to February 1997.)
In order to understand the plight of democracy in Pakistan, one needs to remember the circumstances into which Pakistan came into being. Its establishment as an independent country was the result of a political movement of Muslims of the Subcontinent, no doubt, but those Muslims were not politically organized. In fact, they had no political platform during the initial period. Though they acquired one in 1906 in the form of the Muslim League, this group was not terribly effective until 1934, when Jinnah joined it. Most of those who assumed leadership in the Muslim League and rose to power later in the newly independent country neither felt any real attachment to the norms of democracy nor showed any genuine commitment to Islamic teachings. The persistence of feudal culture throughout the country after independence (even to today) also helped nondemocratic forces exert their influence and poses a continuing and formidable challenge to the progress of democracy in Pakistan.
In addition to this internal dimension, the country faces enormous security pressures due to multifaceted problems with India. As State survival became the country's primary concern, the military assumed a greater than average importance. Then, in the wake of weak political leadership, the military's top brass began to assert its centrality in matters of governance and political management. One reason for the military's frequent and prolonged stints in power is that military rulers have managed to secure substantial external backing for themselves.
Unfortunately, Pakistani politicians have not utilized the interludes between periods of military rule to establish a civilian government. Instead, those who prospered "at the pleasure" of military dictators allowed Parliament to simply "rubber-stamp" the military's initiatives. Rather than serving the cause of democracy, Pakistani politicians have chosen instead to curry favor from the military's top brass and its backers in Washington. By indulging in corruption, these politicians have not only smeared their own reputations but have also given rise to increasing public disenchantment with politics and the political process.
The state of the judiciary is as dismal as that of other branches of the Pakistani government. Apart from a few bold judgments, the higher courts have played a pliant role to suit the whims and notions of those in power. Military dictators and civilians too required that the courts comply with their demands.
The country's media, however, holds promise both for itself and for the nation. In the face of restrictions and persecution, it has managed to survive and uphold the cause of freedom of expression.
In spite of the many obstacles and failures in the democratic process, the people of Pakistan have again and again shown confidence in democracy. Given the opportunity, the public has risen against the military's intervention in politics and forced them back to their barracks. The people want to see Pakistan emerge as a democratic, law-abiding country. Pakistanis have as much potential to live in a peaceful democracy as people of any other nation, and this road it must take. Developing democracy, however, requires time, which it must be given without interruption.
Another phase of local elections recently concluded,1 giving rise to both expectations and apprehensions. While the President, Prime Minister and spokespersons of the ruling coalition declared that these elections were an important milestone in the history of democracy in Pakistan, the opposition expressed serious concerns about the exercise. Though the rulers thought it prudent to hold these elections on a non-party basis, political parties of all hues — ruling and opposition — participated with full vigor.
With all the contradictory assertions and allegations, one faces the inevitable question: Is Pakistan on the road to democracy? If so, then why hasn't it taken root in the country?
While there may be more than one answer and perspective, it is important to keep in mind how Pakistan came into being. Did the conditions that are a pre-requisite for the growth of democratic culture exist or not?
Muslims in the Subcontinent
After being in power in the Subcontinent for over 800 years, Muslims found themselves on the wrong side of the political equation when British colonial forces overthrew them and assumed direct power in the middle of the nineteenth century. The new rulers subjugated their predecessors and deliberately kept them backward in all areas. Although Hindus too were the subjects of colonial rule, they had not been overthrown by their new masters and so were not as averse to them, or their views and policies, as were the Muslims. Indignant at having been removed from power and proud of their values, Muslims boycotted everything English. They were averse to modern education and even against the learning of the English language. Hindus, on the other hand, took to the modern approach more easily. Thus, Muslims began lagging behind their Hindu fellows, who outnumbered them in all fields of human activity.
Since the failure of the Mutiny of 1857, Muslims have also been suspected of being "disloyal." They lacked a political platform of their own from which to express their views. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (d. 1898) had only relative success convincing colonial rulers of the reasons for Muslim unrest and persuading Muslims to desist from active politics and focus instead on acquiring modern educations. He advised Muslims against joining the Indian National Congress (formed in 1885), which was ostensibly a neutral platform for "interaction" between the English and their subjects, but a clear bias toward the Hindu population was evident from the day of its inception.2
Congress struggled to achieve self-rule and independence, but in a way that not only left Muslims hopeless about their status and rights in a free and united India but also made them suspicious about the party's intentions due to its position on issues vital to Muslims, such as separate electorates, the partition of Bengal, and Muslim leaders' efforts for Hindu-Muslim unity. This led to the creation of the Muslim League in 1906 as a party that aimed specifically to represent Muslims.
The Birth and Rise of the Muslim League
The Muslim League would not become a party representing the masses and espousing modern political thought and trends for over a quarter century. It was only when Jinnah joined in 1934 that it began to function as intended. With a solid understanding of the existing situation in the Subcontinent and grasping global trends of liberation and the right of self-determination of all peoples, Jinnah both defined the distinct nature of the Muslim identity and called for a separate homeland for them where they could live according to their own values and way of life.
Pitted in a political battle, Congress and the Muslim League held positions that were becoming increasingly irreconcilable. To resolve the impasse, Lord Wavell, then Viceroy of India, convened a conference at Simla in June 1945 at which it was decided that elections would be held to ascertain who represents whom, and to what extent. Earlier, in the elections in 1937 held under the India Act of 1935, the Muslim League had been unable to prove that it was the sole representative of India's Muslim population while Congress had succeeded in forming its governments in six provinces under the eye of its central leadership.
Early Political Exigencies
Preparing for the 1945–46 elections, Jinnah welcomed "everybody who was anybody" in politics into the Muslim League, but particularly people from the Muslim-majority provinces. Needless to say, he had to compromise in one way or another to enlist Muslim support for the party. The Jinnah-Sikandar Pact is one example of his approach in this regard. On the other hand, local influentials and vested interests in the Muslim-majority areas who wanted only to secure their stake in any future setup were now eager to join the Muslim League, since its ranks were swelling and fortunes rising under Jinnah's dynamic leadership. Many of those who joined the League at this stage did not have any real connection with democratic values and norms. Unfortunately, the undemocratic elements are still at the helm of affairs in the party.
The two parties that assumed power in August 1947 in the two newly independent states of Pakistan and India were poles apart in terms of their political growth, democratic culture, political acumen, and the character of their leadership. Leadership of the Congress espoused democratic values, a nationalist sentiment, and secularism, but many of those who assumed leadership in the Muslim League neither felt any real attachment to the norms of democracy nor showed any commitment to Islamic teachings.
While Nehru's contribution in promoting a democratic culture after Independence in India cannot be denied, the fact is that it was not just Nehru but almost all congressional leaders and supporters who upheld the notion of democracy. With or without Nehru, democracy was set to take root in India. In sharp contrast, those who came to rule in Pakistan were not particularly open to democracy; they believed in personal cults and group interests, not in political institutions or systems. They could not really fathom the idea that common people can be the final arbiters of their own destinies.
Non-democratic Practices and Consequences
It was because the democratic mind-set was so alien to Pakistanis that it took nine years for the country to have a constitution of its own, whereas India achieved this end in just one year. It was not a coincidence that the tradition of time-bound elections took root in India from the very beginning, whereas it took 23 years for Pakistan to hold its first country-wide election — which, ironically, resulted in the bifurcation of the country into Pakistan and Bangladesh. In large part, the secessionist strain in Bangladesh (then the East Pakistan province) was encouraged by the non-democratic attitude of political leaders from West Pakistan. These politicians refused to accept the majority and its right to rule, and instead tried to impose their writ by force, inadvertently paving the way for the separation of the entire region.
These politicians had exhibited similar behavior earlier. In the 1951 elections in Punjab and the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), the sanctity of the ballot box was sacrificed for the sake of political interests and coming to power by any means. In the 1954 elections in East Pakistan, the Jagtu (United) Front won an overwhelming majority, but its government was sacked within a few months and governor rule imposed.
It is an unfortunate reality that those who came to rule the country from the outset were not particularly fond of or trained in democratic traditions. Jinnah only lived for about a year after the creation of Pakistan. His towering persona had overshadowed the weaknesses of local politicians and the fledgling system, but these were exposed with his passing.
Feudal Culture
The existence of a feudal-like system in Pakistan continues to present a formidable obstacle to the progress of democracy in the country. In India, feudalism and landlordism were brought to an end soon after Independence. This ended the poor's financial dependence on feudal lords. The lower classes tasted new freedoms, which in turn supported the spread of democracy in the country. The situation in Pakistan was quite the opposite. Much of the Muslim League leadership, especially from the areas that subsequently became part of Pakistan, was composed of wealthy and powerful landlords and feudal and tribal leaders. Their interests lay in maintaining the status quo; they neither had any particular affinity for democratic values nor did they care about improving the lot of the masses. Since local feudals and chieftains control government machinery, in rural areas in particular, law enforcement agencies take more interest in enforcing the writ of the feudal than that of the law. The feudal class not only still exists but has gained in strength and influence in Pakistani politics. Many of those who occupy prominent positions in political parties, ruling and opposition alike, belong to this class, and their interests lie in the perpetuation of the present feudalistic system.
It is an unfortunate fact that feudal and tribal chiefs have frustrated efforts toward improvement in the area of education. They even opposed the development of infrastructure for fear that this would lead to people's emancipation and progress — the same people who had hitherto been their hapless subjects. The incidence of violence and crime against women in rural areas is a part of this larger picture. Though not limited to women, a particularly ugly fact is that they are often humiliated as a means of subjugating and suppressing the men in the feudal's dominion.
Politics has become a game for the rich and this is a result of the power and influence that feudals enjoy in the country. It is almost impossible for a middle-class individual to consider standing in elections. Thus has the feudal system impeded the growth of democracy in Pakistan.
Military Intervention
With a weak democratic culture and group of politicians (in addition to Indian hostility against Pakistan), the military's top brass found an excuse to meddle in national political affairs. The military has ruled the country for more than half of Pakistan's existence. Even when it is not ruling, military leaders call the shots from behind the scenes and play a "guardian role" in the affairs of the government.
Military interference in Pakistani politics began in the early 1950s when Army Chief General Ayub Khan helped the President dislodge weak political leaders one after another and ultimately assumed power himself by imposing martial law in 1958. The seeds for this had been sown when Khan was appointed Defense Minister "in uniform" in 1954.3
The military's involvement in politics is a major reason why a democratic political culture has not developed in Pakistan. Weak political leadership, India's hostility toward Pakistan and the lingering problem in Jammu and Kashmir have necessitated that Pakistan maintain a large and powerful army.
External Support for Military Juntas
America's patronage of Pakistan's military rulers has also contributed to the inability of democracy to take root in the country. In the face of Indian hostility, Pakistan thought it could best meet security needs by forming an alliance with America and participating in U.S.-led Western treaties (SEATO and CENTO) in the 1950s. Despite all its talk of democracy, the U.S. thinks its own interests are better served when the military has a very prominent role in Pakistan's national matters. This is because the U.S. finds it easy to deal with an unelected dictator — a single person surrounded by sycophants — rather than an elected political leadership that represents the whole nation. The history of external powers' interest and intervention in Pakistan's internal matters is long and sad. If we ignore it, we do so at our peril; the way to overcome it is through the political process.
The U.S. patronized General Ayub Khan so that it would have an ally in the region. It wanted to check the spread of communism, of which Soviet Russia and China were the two main protagonists. Also, India was leaning toward cooperation with the Soviets. The U.S. fully backed General Zia-ul-Haq with respect to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Pakistan's support to the Afghan resistance. This is the U.S. strategy even today. Declaring its attack on Afghanistan in October 2001 as a "war against terrorism," the U.S. enlisted General Pervez Musharraf's support as a "close ally" in this war. Before this, the General did not enjoy favor from the U.S. The perception in Pakistan is that as long as the U.S. needs the General, it will continue to support him regardless of how that affects democracy in Pakistan.
While the U.S. has supported Pakistan's military dictators, successive civilian rulers were never in favor. For example, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, in spite of his secularist thinking, was not in America's good graces because he started a nuclear program. Then there were the crushing sanctions the U.S. imposed against Pakistan throughout the period of civilian rule from the late 1980s to the late 90s — a whole decade — when Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were the elected leaders of the country.
Pakistan first faced martial law in 1958. Although military ruler Ayub Khan employed all means to create an impression of mass support for his rule, he failed to provide justification for being in office and had to relinquish power in the face of the massive agitation and political antagonism against him. His was a despotic rule; the constitution he devised was aimed to perpetuate his own power. He introduced EBDO (Elective Bodies Disqualification Ordinance), a presidential system and maneuvered to defeat Jinnah's sister (Fatima Jinnah) — and with this the will of the people in the presidential elections of 1965. In spite of all this, he had to abdicate power in 1968. What is worth noting is that the subsequent transfer of power did not take place according to the constitution he had devised. It is unfortunate that his departure did not result in democracy in Pakistan. He was succeeded by another despot, General Yahya Khan, who presided over the tragic separation of East Pakistan — reaping what Ayub Khan had sown there for himself.
Political Bickering
The chaotic reign of General Yahya Khan ended when Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto assumed power. Although he was an elected Prime Minister, he held the dubious distinction of being the Civilian Chief Martial Law Administrator. He had been Foreign Minister with Ayub Khan, and had made the post a focus of public attention. His charismatic leadership and role in foreign and defense policies aside, Bhutto did not show any real interest in promoting a democratic culture in Pakistan either. Although his role in the consensual 1973 Constitution has been greatly appreciated, he himself trampled its sanctity. He not only persecuted his political opponents but refused to tolerate dissent, even from within party ranks.
Thus, in spite of civilian rule from 1972 to 77, democracy failed to take hold in Pakistan. The constitution was not respected in either spirit or letter. Smaller provinces were restless and complained about the federal government's attitude. The situation came to a head in the province of Balochistan — army action was mounted there. This might have quelled the opposition at the time, but further boosted anti-Center sentiment. Ultimately, the provincial governments in Balochistan and NWFP were dissolved (The Balochistan government was dissolved, while the NWFP government resigned in protest).4
The performance of the opposition from the platform of the Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) too became a cause for despondency and dejection. The allegation against the leadership of the Alliance is that it deliberately tried to sabotage talks with the government of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, that it invited martial law (1977) and obtained ministerial positions separately after differences developed among its own ranks. The formation of MRD led by the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) could not provide a platform for political culture. Along with those in its ranks who were playing the game of the establishment, the MRD was criticized by those who had earlier formed the PNA against the PPP. This mutual recrimination adversely affected the position of all political parties in the eyes of the people.
Although apparently facing no political challenge but in search of legitimacy for his rule and to continue as president, General Zia-ul-Haq held elections in 1985 on a non-party basis — like the recently concluded elections for local bodies. While these elections paved the way for democracy, they also strengthened the biraderi system and gave rise to parochial, ethnic and tribal prejudices. The tenure of Prime Minister Junejo (1985–88) proved better in many respects than the previous governments. Martial law came to an end — although the 8th Amendment provided indemnity for measures taken by the martial law regime, political parties were revived, and there were greater freedoms of speech and dissent. But when the Premier began to assert himself, the President (General Zia-ul-Haq, who was also the Chief of Army) dismissed him.
This relatively better period of civilian rule in Pakistan was followed by a game of musical chairs between two other civilian leaders — Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Between 1988 and 1999, both assumed power in two stints each, interspersed with caretaker governments. Neither showed any interest in promoting democracy in the country and instead indulged in personal aggrandizement and cronyism. It is sad that both failed to show any real commitment to democracy. This provided another excuse for the military to call the shots from behind the scene for about a decade and then jump directly into the foray and reassume power.5
The people of Pakistan feel a kind of disillusionment with democracy and its suitability for governing and running the affairs of their state. A number of questions such as, Should we imitate the Western model of democracy or have a vision of our own? have been raised to create confusion. What Pakistan needs is not to question the system but to start with a system and continue with it. In modern times, no system has proved better than democracy.
It is clear that democracy in Pakistan will be different from the Western model. Here, the legislature will never have unlimited power to legislate on any issue, as the legislatures in Western democracies have; they will be guided by Islamic teachings. Here, sovereignty will be recognized as Allah's and people will enjoy power as His vicegerents. In Muslim democracies, the legislature cannot declare halal what has been declared haram, and vice versa. But in remaining matters — such as adult franchise; time-bound elections; political freedoms; separate jurisdiction of the Parliament, Judiciary, and the Executive branches of state; human rights; etc. — there is nothing inherent in democracy that conflicts with the message of Islam. The demands of Islamic teachings and tenets have been enshrined in every constitution Pakistan has ever had. This is why it is regarded as a sacred document. It is a covenant between the different segments and classes of society. A civilized nation respects and obeys its constitution in all situations. This enables it to face the ups and downs of circumstance and continue with its collective national life. This ability, in turn, provides confidence and a sense of security as well as highlighting its distinct identity among other nations. Pakistan needs these things and therefore needs to take democracy seriously.
Sovereign nations achieve stability, strength and power not because of a few individuals but because of strong institutions, stable systems, and well-rooted traditions. This is a process of evolution. It may be that the political process and democracy in Pakistan have failed again and again and that they cannot bring stability to the country. However, the answer is not in giving up on the democratic process, but in adhering to it more closely.
Democratic institutions and tradition take root only through a process of evolution. The sapling of democracy may take root quickly in one place if conditions allow, but it must be given time to grow, even if it appears to be taking too long. From the very start, the situation in Pakistan has not been favorable for the evolution of democracy. The country faced crises on both internal and external fronts. Internally, it was weak and faced a host of issues; externally it faced the hostility of its much larger neighbor. But this is no excuse for military intervention in politics. Observant people agree that if the army had resisted the urge to jump into the foray in 1958, there would have been no subsequent periods of martial law because Pakistani political institutions would have gained in strength and maturity, assumed their proper role and averted the conditions under which the military intervened in national affairs. Since democracy was effectively killed in its infancy, the later stages of maturity and experience could not be reached.
This is how we should view the flaws and weaknesses of political leadership even now. Maturity will come with the passage of time, as will political stability and economic prosperity. Traditions need time to take root, but they will. Pakistan is not a special case in that cannot be trusted and will therefore be barred from evolving. In a free environment, we can express our values and reflect these in our institutions. But we must realize there is no escaping some degree of trial and error.
As far as the people of the country are concerned, they have shown their confidence in the democratic tradition time and again. When General Yahya lifted the ban from political activities in January 1970, the whole country saw a great enthusiasm and increased political activism — even though it had been in the throes of chaos for five months in the preceding year. The year-long political electoral campaign remained peaceful. Similarly, the electioneering of 1977 saw great tension and agitation, yet elections were peaceful, as was the PNA-led campaign against alleged electoral rigging. It was similar in the 2002 elections. This shows that Pakistanis are a normal political people and can go as far on the road to democracy as any other nation can. This road we must take; we cannot do without it.
Role of the Judiciary
A major factor for the frequent interruptions in the democratic process is the tendency of military governments to devise new constitutions and then abrogation them. Those politicians who prosper under the military's umbrella do not consider the exercise of constitution-making more than a game and play to serve vested interests while adjusting to the mood of the "high command." This is one reason why the constitution in Pakistan has not achieved the sanctity that is its due, and which is accorded to it in civilized societies.
With this approach, those who happen to rule the country see no reason for concern over the uncertain and unclear status of the Constitution of 1973 these days. To them, the country is functioning quite well despite all this fuss and mess. Even if the constitution is abrogated or changed tomorrow, they hold, there would be no catastrophe. Observant people cannot help showing concern over such an attitude. A country's constitution reflects its political philosophy, its way of life, and its views on governance. It is, in fact, an agreement between the different classes and segments of society, regions, and administrative units. All segments of society look to it to arrive at decisions with consensus.
In this regard, the role of the judiciary is very important. The judiciary, needless to say, plays a vital role in the promotion and consolidation of democracy in any country. But it has not been given the freedom that it needs to play its due role in Pakistan.
If the judiciary is to play its due role in the promotion of democracy in the country, then its credibility must be restored. The government's power to appoint judges should be eliminated; it should be the Supreme Judicial Council that reviews the cases of judges' appointment and promotion and then refers them to the Prime Minister and President for action. The judiciary's autonomy in economic matters is important so that it can dispense justice among the people and the government, between the Center and the Provinces, and among the Provinces themselves. Judges' tenures should be secure so that they can function without insecurity, fear or outside influence. There should be restrictions preventing judges' appointment to a profitable post after retirement. The government should desist from any overture that gives the impression, no matter how slight, that it seeks to influence or direct the Pakistan's courts.
Until the government does this and the people see and believe that this it is so, the dream of rule of law and the prevalence of justice will remain elusive.
The absence of a democratic culture and tradition of rule of law are Pakistan's biggest problems. If we do not address these issues directly, the state of Pakistan will continue to suffer. The need of the hour is to establish a rule of law that applies to all, the rulers and the ruled, and that includes a prohibition against military intervention.
The Present
Despite the people's commitment and the role the media has and is playing, it is sad that the present political scenario is no better than the past. There exists in Pakistan only the appearance of democracy; the country has a long way to go to actually be a democracy.
President General Pervez Musharraf has repeatedly said that democracy has taken root in Pakistan. He points to the freedom the press enjoys, the existence of a functioning Parliament, and the accountability of officials, along with the enhanced role of women in national politics. He has also remarked that it might seem strange that he, being a person in uniform, talks about democracy and insists he has established a lasting system of democracy, but he claims he has and that to do so is his Providence-ordained task.6
No matter what Musharraf says, the people of Pakistan can see that an Army Chief has become their ruler, that he is equipped with vast powers under the 8th and 17th Amendments7 to the Constitution, that he created a majority by cobbling together different elements in the aftermath of the 2002 elections, and that whoever might be occupying the seat of the Prime Minister — Mir Zafarullah Jamali, Chaudhri Shujaat Hussain, or Mr. Shaukat Aziz — he is the one who makes that appointment. These Prime Ministers apparently assumed their offices with the Parliament's majority's vote, but there is no illusion as to who enjoys the real power. As for the degree of freedom of the press, this is neither a sudden occurrence nor a gift from anyone. It is the press itself that has protected its freedom and secured its place for itself.
General Musharraf's assertions are not new. What is more important, however, is that while he reiterated them in New York (September 2005) during his recent visit, and said that a President should not be in uniform, he declined to give assurance that he would give up his uniform in 2007. When pressed, he said that he would "cross the bridge on reaching it." This is what he used to say when asked whether he would give up his uniform by December 31, 2004 (according to an agreement with the MMA in the form of the 17th Amendment). The bridge was there and the whole world saw how he crossed it! His statement that "no U.S. official, including President Bush, asked him to doff his uniform" indicates that the chances he will remove his uniform are slim, even in 2007. Musharraf counts the recently concluded local bodies elections as an indication that democracy is well on its course in the country. Such assertions, in spite of all the allegations against the transparency of these elections, suggest that the same drama will be repeated in the next general elections.
THE FUTURE
What is the future of democracy in Pakistan? In his recent book, Stephen P. Cohen talks about possible scenarios for Pakistan in the future. In the first, "Continuation of Establishment-dominated oligarchic system," he says: "Over the next five or six years: do not underestimate the capability of a small elite to manage a big country, but do not exaggerate their ability to work together and avert disaster." In his words, the outcome of such a scenario is: "Pakistan manipulates terrorist threat, Establishment searches for external alliances, nuclear and missile production continues despite weak economy, little movement in relations with India." In the second scenario, even if a political and democratic government is restored, it would remain weak and the military would continue to call the shots from behind the scenes.
The prospects for true democracy in Pakistan are apparently not very bright. The absence of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif has weakened their political parties. It is almost certain that the circle around these parties will be narrowed further before the next election, which may force the parties to boycott them. The government will also not allow the MMA (a political alliance of six religious parties) to benefit in any way from the vacuum. All this implies that the
Q-League (the ruling faction of the Muslim League) will be in a position to dominate the next Parliament as well.
The country is in danger of moving towards one-party rule under the umbrella of General Musharraf, who will secure for himself the right to continue in office with his uniform and even maneuver his unopposed election, and who will be content with his rule and its continuation at the cost of weakening all political forces in Pakistan except the Q-League and its allies.
The politically conscious people of Pakistan, however, cannot accept that Pakistan needs a democratic model in which the Army Chief becomes President, with a central and key role in the system and full concentration of powers in his hands, and in which notable political figures have been kept out and disallowed to play their due role.
If General Musharraf remains adamant about running a democracy under his thumb, and if his political allies continue to be opportunistic, wanting to see him President at the time of general elections in 2007, then forces in the opposition may wind up in a boycott of elections. Will this benefit the country? Obviously not.
The key to preventing political tension lies with General Musharraf himself. The first thing to do in this regard is to assure the people that the next elections will really be free and fair, and to encourage people to forget the past. A good start would be by appointing the next Chief Election Commissioner with the opposition's consent. Then, Benazir and Nawaz Sharif should be allowed to return and lead their party during elections. Political space should be provided to all political actors without prejudice and manipulation.
The people of Pakistan and their leaders need to believe that 'controlled' or 'compromised' democracy is not Pakistan's destiny; its progress lies in adherence to democracy with its well-established and very well-known norms. Although the military has come to occupy an important position in the political setup, acquiescing to it as "an immutable reality" and, then, compromising on principled positions does not behoove true democrats.
Endnotes Go to sectionTop of pageMuslims in the SubcontinentThe Birth and Rise of the Musl...Early Political ExigenciesNon-democratic Practices and C...Feudal CultureMilitary InterventionExternal Support for Military ...Political BickeringRole of the JudiciaryThe PresentThe Future?EndnotesUsers who read this article al...
Footnotes
* The writer is one of the most widely read columnists in Pakistan. He served as Federal Minister of Information and Media Development during the interim government of Malik Meraj Khalid from November 1996 to February 1997.
1. Elections for district governments in Pakistan were held in three phases; began in August and concluded in October 2005.
2. Congress claimed to represent all communities in India: Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Parsis,
Christians, etc. No doubt, prominent Muslim figures such as Badruddin Tyabji and Maulana Azad became its Presidents, but they remained mere figure-heads–Goakhale, Tilak, Gandhi, and Nehru were the men who really pulled the reins, directly or from the behind the scenes.
3. In order to secure a greater role in national affairs and legitimize it, the military has sought some kind of constitutional arrangement for its role in politics. General Zia was the first military ruler who proposed setting up of a National Security Council (NSC) for the top brass to share policy-making with civilian political leaders. He added Article 152-A to the 1973 Constitution through the Revival of Constitutional Order (RCO) in March 1985 to establish the NSC. The formation of NSC was opposed by most political circles and had to be dropped as part of the deal with the Parliament to get its approval for the revised version of RCO as the Eighth Constitutional Amendment in October 1985. Then, in his address at the Navy War College in October 1998, Army Chief General Jehangir Karamat underlined the need for creating an institutional arrangement at the highest level for devising effective policies for coping with ongoing economic drift and political management problems. Five days after his assumption of power, Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf announced formation of an NSC headed by the Chief Executive (the title he chose for himself). In December 2003, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) and the government signed an agreement for resolving the political impasse on the Legal Framework Order (LFO). One of the provisions of this agreement provided that the NSC would not be a constitutional body but would be set up through legislation. Other opposition parties stayed away from this agreement, which took the form of the 17th Amendment.
4. In addition, the government's ill-devised policies in the economic field created anxiety, unrest and instability. The policy of nationalization of industrial and educational institutions, for example, gave rise to widespread apprehensions that the government's continuation in office would result in increasing government control and squeeze the space for private business. The nationalization policy produced the worst situation of high inflation rate and declining purchasing-power. Inadvertently, the rulers not only invited public rage against themselves, but, to an extent, created a sort of disillusionment with democracy for they were democratically elected rulers!
5. Benazir Bhutto and her spouse have allegedly been involved in corruption on a massive scale, but the way the Accountability Bureau targeted them during the Nawaz era did not give to the common man the impression that the process of accountability was neutral or judicious. The process of 'victimization' against Benazir Bhutto has become so long and the moral and legal foundations on which it is based are so weak that, in spite of all the allegations against them, the former ruling couple has started winning sympathies in some hearts. The nation had risen in 1996–97 for establishing the tradition of judicious accountability, but the Nawaz government failed to give it a proper shape. This was a great disservice to the nation. If a neutral and credible machinery had been established for the purpose of accountability, this would have strengthened the notion of rule of law along with considerably reducing the level of corruption.
6. The claim of establishing a democratic setup according to Pakistan's peculiar ground realities is not new. General Musharraf is not the first to say so. General Ayub had similarly talked about basic democracy, controlled democracy and the system that better reflects the needs of the nation, etc. His system was a house of cards that vanished with his own removal from the scene. General Yahya too tried to give a so-called democratic constitution that actually revolved around his person. Zia-ul-Haq used at times Islam and at others made reference to a diary of Quaid-e-Azam to flout well-established democratic principles and continue with his Martial Law. When he had to hold elections in 1985, he held them on a non-party basis to keep the political parties out.
7. These Amendments are like a bargain in which measures taken during the Martial Law tenures were given indemnity in exchange for bringing an end to Martial Law rule. The 8th Amendment was passed in 1985 to lift Zia's Martial Law, while the 17th Amendment was passed in 2003, after an agreement between the government and the MMA (United Action Front), to fix a date for General Musharraf to give up his army post (in fact, either of the two offices he held: the President and the Army Chief) and pave way for real parliamentary democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)