Musharraf Betrays Pakistan (By Siraj Islam Mufti)

Pakistan came into being on August 14, 1947. As the Creator willed it, the date corresponded with the empowering night of Ramadan 27 of the year 1366 after the Prophet’s Hijra. Its great destiny was thus set from the start.

It envisaged a magnanimous vision - a deliberate attempt to restore the primacy of the Islamic Ummah that had been eclipsed by colonial intervention. It was for this raison d’etre that Muslims of the Indian subcontinent sacrificed their lives and all, undergoing unparalleled sufferings in the annals of humankind, with over one million dead and millions of others displaced from their homes and properties.

The Great Leader’s Testimony

Pakistan’s Great Leader – Quaid-i-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, reminded the people at a rally on October 30, 1947, in no uncertain terms:

If we take our inspiration and guidance from the Holy Qur’an, the final victory, I once again say, will be ours… Do not be overwhelmed by the enormity of the task… You only have to develop the spirit of the Mujahids. You are a nation whose history is replete with people of wonderful character and heroism. Live up to your traditions and add to another chapter of glory. All I require of you now is that everyone… must vow to himself and be prepared to sacrifice his all… in building up Pakistan as a bulwark of Islam and as one of the greatest nations whose ideal is peace within and peace without… Islam enjoins on every Mussulman to give protection to his neighbors and to minorities regardless of caste and creed.1

As the leader of the All India Muslim League, Jinnah told his counterpart, Mohandas K. Gandhi, in 1944, “We are a nation with our own distinctive culture, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and moral code, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitude and ambitions. In short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life.”2

The Muslim League adopted the Pakistan resolution on March 23, 1940, which called for the establishment of a sovereign, independent, and Islamic country, comprised of Muslim majority provinces in the Northwest and another in the Northeast. The following day, Lord Zetland, Secretary of State for the colonial India, wrote of his apprehensions regarding this proposition to Lord Linlithgow, the British viceroy in New Delhi, saying:

[T]he call of Islam is one which transcends the bounds of country. It may have lost some force as a result of the abolition of Caliphate by Mustafa Kamal Pasha, but it still has a very considerable appeal as witness for example Jinnah’s insistence on our giving undertaking that Indian troops should never be employed against any Muslim state, and the solicitude which he has constantly expressed for the Arabs of Palestine.3

Furthermore, he could not “help thinking if (a) separate Muslim state did indeed come into existence in India, as now contemplated by the All India Muslim League, the day would come when they might find the temptation to join an Islamic Commonwealth of nations well nigh irresistable.”4

This explains the British mindset and why they were so opposed to the creation of Pakistan. But God Almighty destined Pakistan for the Muslims, and Muhammad Ali Jinnah was unambiguous in his declarations in this regard. For example, when Lord Mountbatten, the last Indian Viceroy made reference to the example of the Mughal Emperor, Akbar, Jinnah replied:

The tolerance and goodwill that the great Emperor showed to all non-Muslims is not of recent origin. It dates back thirteen centuries ago when our Prophet (peace be upon him) not only by words but also by deeds treated Jews and Christians, after he had conquered them, with the utmost tolerance and regard and respect for their faith and beliefs. The whole history of Muslims, wherever they ruled, is replete with humane and great principles which should be followed and practised.5

And, specifically addressing the people of the United States, in a radio broadcast in February 1948, he said, “Pakistan is the premier Islamic state and the fifth largest in the world,” adding that despite “the terrible trials and tribulations” the country had endured, “Pakistan will never be found lacking in extending its material and moral support to the oppressed and suppressed peoples of the world in upholding the principles of the United Nations Charter.”6

In fulfillment of this promise, Pakistan provided material and moral support for the liberation struggles of Muslims from Algeria, Tunisia and Libya to Sudan, Somalia, and Indonesia.

Meddling by the Army

Muhammad Ali Jinnah was cognizant of the task that lay ahead for the newly-formed Pakistan’s defense forces. Just days ahead of independence, he addressed the senior officers of the British Indian armed forces who had opted for Pakistan, along with the three British service chiefs at Edwards College in Peshawar. His message was short and clear: “Now it is for you to build Pakistan as the greatest Muslim state of the world.”7

To this he added, “Pakistan would be a base where we will be able to train and bring up Muslim intellectuals, educationists, economists, scientists, doctors, engineers, technicians, etc. who will work to bring about Islamic renaissance.”8

The Quaid passed away a year after Pakistan became independent. Unfortunately, Liaquat Ali Khan, the prime minister chosen by him, was assassinated soon thereafter. After him, Ghulam Muhammad, who exercised his powers as the ceremonial governor general of the British Crown, dismissed the last legitimate political leader of Pakistan, Khawaja Nazimuddin. This was an indication that although the British had left, the soul and psyche of their obedient servants was still at work. From then on, the bureaucrats, opportunists, mercenaries, and agents had their heyday.

Soon after, the first coup attempt by the army in March 1951 was put down, but the incident revealed that the military had its eye on more than just its constitutional prerogatives, and after the ouster of Nazimuddin, effective control passed into the hands of the Commander-in-Chief, Ayub Khan. Thus an alliance developed between the civil and military bureaucracies and the Feudal class, a remnant of the colonial era.

While both Liaquat Ali Khan and Nazimuddin had refused to join the Western alliance, with the military’s ascension to power, Pakistan signed a Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement with the United States in May 1954, and later in the same year joined the Western-dominated eight-member South-East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). This was followed by Pakistan’s accession to the four-nation Baghdad Pact, comprising Britain, Turkey, Iran and Iraq (later renamed the Central Treaty Organization [CENTO] after the overthrow of the Iraqi monarchy). A fourth security agreement, a bilateral Agreement of Cooperation was also signed with the US.

Ayub Khan thought that these agreements, especially the ones with the US, would oblige the US government “under certain circumstances, to assist Pakistan if she became the victim of aggression.” But Washington had at the same time given “specific assurance” to New Delhi that this agreement “could not be used against India.”

In his naiveté, Ayub Khan thought that CENTO would provide “an excellent and unique platform” for Muslim unity. But all these security pacts were designed for no other purpose than to further US interests, a fact Khan soon came to realize, as related in his autobiography “Friends not Masters.” But shortly thereafter, he had to pass on the reins of power to his army chief, Yahya Khan.

The Break-up of Pakistan

Yahya Khan was more involved with wine and women than with the affairs of the state, which inevitably devolved upon a small clique of civil and military bureaucrats. While most were involved in schemes to consolidate their power, M.M. Ahmed, the head of the Planning Commission and a Qadyani9, played a significant role in sowing the seeds of discord and disunity between East and West Pakistan through the deliberate formulation of policies that would create economic disparities between the two sides.

Rather than holding elections to resolve the simmering conflict, Ahmed advised Yahya Khan to let it go, allowing the tensions to come to a boil and leading to the consequent secession of East Pakistan, the aftermath of which Pakistan has yet to recover from.10

The secession was an anomaly; during partition, Muslims from East Pakistan overwhelmingly supported the Pakistan movement. Politically, they were more conscious and free from feudal control than their compatriots in West Pakistan; their leaders were also mostly educated and middle class. Having rid themselves of that check on their power, Yahya Khan and his junta believed that their quasi-military rule was secured, with the blessings of the US and Pakistan’s feudal political leadership.

Bhutto and Zia

The secession debacle, however, was cataclysmic for the nation, and Yahya Khan was forced to leave office in disgrace. The Hamoodur Rahman Commission, which was appointed to investigate the circumstances leading to the secession, concluded that it was “a rot beginning from the top.”11 Whatever role was played by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto as one of the three principals involved, he set out to redeem himself once he became the Prime Minister.

Bhutto set out to depoliticize the army, and in the process attempted to inject it with some Islamic character. He selected a junior and rather non-descript but “praying” officer, Ziaul Haq as his army chief.

Bhutto matured into a world-class statesman who wanted to turn Pakistan into “the greatest Muslim state of the world,” and initiated a nuclear program to counter that being developed by rival India. But his feudal traits let him down.

It is interesting to note that General Ziaul Haq, who deposed Bhutto and allowed him to be executed after the Supreme Court turned down Bhutto’s appeal against a murder conviction, followed the same strategic vision. He braved all opposition and pursued the nuclear program. Furthermore, Ziaul Haq strengthened Pakistan’s friendship with Afghanistan, providing training and organizational support for efforts to evict the USSR from its territory. The US joined the endeavor later on, when it saw the Afghan Mujahideen’s fortunes changing.

But the scope of Ziaul Haq’s vision was wider still; this could not be tolerated. It is alleged that the CIA engineered the plane crash that killed Ziaul Haq.

Ziaul Haq was succeeded by corrupt and inept civilian regimes that alternated between Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Pakistan virtually became a one party state, with its polity dominated by the army generals.

General Musharraf: Take Over and Betrayal

General Pervez Musharraf’s power-grab on October 12, 1999 was long in the making. United States diplomats were quick in expressing relief at “Musharraf's reputation as a modern thinker and religious moderate, even though he heads an army that reportedly is rife with Islamic zealots.”12

Addressing the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee, a senior CIA officer and former Pakistan station chief commented that the CIA could do business with Musharraf. Considering his background and long association with the US army, he said:

“Musharraf may represent a last good chance to bring the powerful force in the world and our system of values to bear on the course Pakistan will choose for the new millennium … he might be able to guide elements within Pakistan society away from the dangerous, fundamentalist path . . . to a more reasonable and responsible course.”13

From Musharraf’s conduct since then, it’s clear that even that CIA official may not have gauged him fully, given the extent to which the Pakistani president continues to ingratiate himself with the United States. Musharraf’s willingness to take up the United States’ policies hook, line, and sinker has earned him the nickname “Busharraf” among many Pakistanis, with many bitterly joking that someone has hired their general.

Since Bush’s historic 9/11 midnight telephone call to Musharraf, Pakistan has become a vassal state – an entity with no national or security interests of its own. Gradually, Musharraf is submitting to the US’ grand designs for South Asia, wherein India serves as America’s surrogate regional power – a power to which Pakistan is subordinated.

Step by step, the Musharraf junta is backing out of any commitment to the heroic resistance of the Kashmiris and moving towards rapprochement with and the acceptance of a Hinduized India. Also, Pakistan’s nuclear capability was too hot a potato for Musharraf’s generals, and the father of the Pakistani bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan, is now maligned as a nuclear black marketer.

Pakistan’s Raison D’etre
Musharraf and his bedfellows have not only betrayed Pakistan, but also friendly Afghanistan, bartering Pakistan’s own security for an unstable and unfriendly regime in Kabul. Today, Musharraf’s mercenaries, in obedience to his white master in Washington, are not only alienating history’s bravest people in a strategic area that is essential to Pakistan’s very existence, but are also hunting and gunning down stateless Arab and Muslim refugees from the Afghan jihad days, men the US once supported and armed. What a contortion of Pakistan’s raison d’etre! What a shame on Musharraf and his gang!

But the masses of Pakistan, momentarily confused into inaction, are now ready to ignite a new war of independence, a massive uprising where the popular will will exert itself to purge the “land of the pure” (that is what Pakistan means) of all filth, in fulfillment of their sacred duty to revalidate Pakistan’s raison d’etre.

Siraj Islam Mufti, PhD, is a researcher and freelance journalist. He frequently contributes articles to the Islamic Circle of North America, Muslim American Society, and United Association for Studies and Research.

Thanks for sharing.

Mufti would be a real scholar if he could describe a different course of action, and how to manage its potential implications. Anyone can write something blasting someone..kinda like I just did..but then I dont consider myself a political"scholar"

Musharraf should really just turn the country over to the fundies, I’m sure economic conditions as well as quality of life would improve greatly as Afghanistan did under the Taliban.

:halo:

I think Musharraf should stay put, think he’s doing a good job :k: