We need ‘enlightened moderation’ — President Pervez Musharraf

Nicely written.

Enlightened Moderation

The world at large and the powers that be must realise that confrontation and force will never bring peace. Justice must be done and be seen to be done. Let it not be said by future generations that we, the leaders of today, took humanity toward the apocalypse

The world has been going through a tumultuous period since the dawn of the 1990s, with no sign of relief in sight. The suffering of the innocents, particularly my brethren in faith — the Muslims — at the hands of militants, extremists and terrorists has made it all the more urgent to bring order to this troubled scene. In this spirit, I would like to set forth a strategy I call Enlightened Moderation.

The world has become an extremely dangerous place. The devastating power of plastic explosives, combined with high-tech remote-controlled devices, as well as a proliferation of suicide bombers, has created a lethal force that is all but impossible to counter. The unfortunate reality is that both the perpetrators of these crimes and most of the people who suffer from them are Muslims. This has caused many non-Muslims to believe wrongly that Islam is a religion of intolerance, militancy and terrorism. It has led increasing numbers of people to link Islam to fundamentalism; fundamentalism to extremism, and extremism to terrorism. Muslims can protest however vigorously they like against this kind of labelling, but the reality is that such arguments are not likely to prevail in the battle for minds. To make things even more difficult, Muslims are probably the poorest, most uneducated, most powerless and most disunited people in the world.

The stark challenge that faces anyone with compassion for the common heritage of mankind is determining what legacy we will leave for future generations. The special challenge that confronts Muslims is to drag ourselves out of the pit we find ourselves in, to raise ourselves up by individual achievement and collective socio-economic emancipation. Something has to be done quickly to stop the carnage in the world and to stem the downward slide of Muslims.

My idea for untangling this knot is Enlightened Moderation, which I think is a win for all — for both the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds. It is a two-pronged strategy. The first part is for the Muslim world to shun militancy and extremism and adopt the path of socio-economic uplift. The second is for the West, and the United States in particular, to seek to resolve all political disputes with justice and to aid in the socio-economic betterment of the deprived Muslim world.

We need to understand that the root cause of extremism and militancy lies in political injustice, denial and deprivation. Political injustice to a nation or a people, when combined with stark poverty and illiteracy, makes for an explosive mix. It produces an acute sense of hopelessness and powerlessness. A nation suffering from these lethal ills is easily available for the propagation of militancy and the perpetration of extremist, terrorist acts. It is cannon fodder in a war of terrorism.

I would be remiss if, in defence of the people of my faith, I did not trace the genesis of the Muslims’ being labelled as extremists or terrorists. Before the anti-Soviet Afghan war, the sole cause of unrest and concern in the Muslim world was the Palestine dispute. It was this issue that led to a unity of Muslims — in favour of Palestinians and against Israel. The Afghan war of the 1980s supported and facilitated by the West as a proxy war against the Soviet Union, saw the emergence and nurturing of pan-Islamic militancy. Islam as a religion was used to harness worldwide Muslim support. Subsequently the atrocities and ethnic cleansing against Muslims in Bosnia, the Chechen uprising, the Kashmir freedom struggle and the invigorated Palestinian intifada all erupted in the ‘90s after the Soviet disintegration. To make matters worse, the militancy that was sparked in Afghanistan — which should have been defused after the Cold War — was instead allowed to fester for a decade.

During this time, hostility among fighters from the Muslim world turned multidirectional, seeking new conflict zones in places where Muslims were suffering. Enter the birth of al Qaeda. Meanwhile, the Palestinian intifada kept gathering momentum, uniting and angering Muslims across the globe. And then came the bombshell of Sept. 11 2001, and the angry reaction of the United States against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. All subsequent reactions of the United States — its domestic responses against Muslims, its attitude toward Palestine and the operation in Iraq — led to total polarization of the Muslim masses against the United States. It is not Islam as a religion that has created militancy and extremism but rather political disputes that have led to antagonism among the Muslim masses.

This is all history now. What has been done cannot be undone. But this situation cannot be allowed to fester; a remedy must be found. I call on the West to help resolve these political disputes with justice, as part of a commitment to a strategy of Enlightened Moderation.

When I think of the role of Muslims in today’s world, my heart weeps. What we need is introspection. Who are we, what do we as Muslims stand for, where are we going, where should we be headed and how can we reach it? The answers to these questions are the Muslim part of Enlightened Moderation.

We have a glorious past. Islam exploded on the world scene as the flag bearer of a just, lawful, tolerant and value-oriented society. We had faith in human exaltation through knowledge and enlightenment. We exemplified tolerance within ourselves and toward people of other faiths. The armies of Islam did not march forward to convert people by the sword, despite what the perceptions may be, but to deliver them from the darkness through the visible example of their virtues. What better projection can be found of these deeper values of Islam than the personal example of our Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H.), who personified justice, compassion, tolerance of others, generosity of spirit, austerity with a spirit of sacrifice, and a burning desire to make a better world.

Today’s Muslim world is distant from all these values. We have been left far behind in social, moral and economic development. We have remained in our own shell and refused to learn or acquire from others. We have reached the depths of despair and despondency. We need to face stark reality. Is the way ahead one of confrontation and militancy? Could this path really lead us back to our past glory while also showing the light of progress and development to the world?

I say to my brother Muslims: The time for renaissance has come. The way forward is through enlightenment. We must concentrate on human resource development through the alleviation of poverty and through education, health care and social justice. If this is our direction, it cannot be achieved through confrontation. We must adopt a path of moderation and a conciliatory approach to fight the common belief that Islam is a religion of militancy in conflict with modernization, democracy and secularism. All this must be done with a realization that, in the world we live in, fairness does not always rule.

The Organization of Islamic Conferences (OIC) is our collective body. We need to infuse new life into it; it is now in a state of near impotence. The OIC must be restructured to meet the challenges of the 21st century, to fulfil the aspirations of the Muslim world and to take us toward emancipation. Forming a committee of luminaries to recommend a restructuring of the OIC is a big step in the right direction. We have to show resolve and rise above self-interest for our common good — in the very spirit that Islam teaches us.

The world at large and the powers that be must realise that confrontation and force will never bring peace. Justice must be done and be seen to be done. Let it not be said by future generations that we, the leaders of today, took humanity toward the apocalypse.

Gen Musharraf is president of Pakistan. This article also appeared in the Washington Post

Look who is talking. A dictator is trying to behave like a learned professor. Didn't he know it 5 years ago that confrontation and force won't bring peace when he was sending his jihadis on Kargil hence put two nuclear power on the verge of war. Muslims are going through a tumultuous period because almost all muslim countries are being ruled by kings or dictators like him who are thoroughly incapable to govern a country. Why are the muslim countries like Malaysia and Turkey not going through this tumultuous period? Western countries surely supported Mujahideen against Soviets in Afghanistan but it was only Zia who used religion to justify his rule without knowing that he was letting the genie out of the bottle and would be impossible to control it later. Zia supported religious fundamentalists more for his own purpose than for the Afghan jihad.

Musharraf is a hypocrite of the highest order like all other dictators. There is a dichotomy between his words and his actions. He himself never attempted to curb on these organizaitons in Pakistan. Democratic countries like Germany, France and England took many years after the event of 9-11 to enact new laws in order to control religious fundamentalists living in their countries, but dictatorial regimes do whatever they want. For them constitution is only a booklet with ten to twelve pages and can be teared up and there is nobody to stop them. Dictators like Musharraf are a curse on Islamic Countries and should be perished as soon as possible.

If Musharraf is really interested in the well-being of this country then he should send his soldiers back into their barracks and let the politicians govern this country.

Even the writer of this editorial concurs with me.

Enlightenment is a tough transformation to attempt in the Muslim world because it is based on reason and reaches its fulfilment in a secular world. The Islamic world has on the other hand rejected the Muslim reformism of the beginning of the 20th century and is in the process of turning away from reason. Moderation is the essence of Islam and can be realised with education and economic advancement. (If you have no assets to guard you will be reckless.) Moderation is what President Musharraf should try and achieve first in Pakistan, after which Pakistan can become the ‘core state’ which the OIC needs to become truly effective. But this can be realised in Pakistan only through a state bureaucracy trained in the virtues of moderation and through a restoration of the political system which President Musharraf seems not to favour. This is the essence of conflict between his theory and practice. *

Originally posted by shawaiz: *
**Western countries surely supported Mujahideen against Soviets in Afghanistan but it was only Zia who used religion to justify his rule without knowing that he was letting the genie out of the bottle and would be impossible to control it later. Zia supported religious fundamentalists more for his own purpose than for the Afghan jihad.
*

No matter what the motives were, personal power or proxy wars, all involved promoted, indoctrined and supported these "holy" fighters who wewre cast aside when their purpose was mey, except these people were not machines that could just be shut off..they took their war to other fronts.

** There is a dichotomy between his words and his actions. **

Kinda like those of every single ruler in pakistan's recent history, going back lets say 20 years :)

*He himself never attempted to curb on these organizaitons in Pakistan. *

If i recall rigth he banned some extremist groups even before 9/11.

*If Musharraf is really interested in the well-being of this country then he should send his soldiers back into their barracks and let the politicians govern this country. *

agreed, and he should make sure that before he leaves that he leaves a system in place that does not bring back the self serving, corrupt politicians like benazir and company who may get in power thru voting but sure act more like dictators than elected officials when in power.

:rotfl:

Fraudz,

Do you have nothing else to say other than - All governments f#$#ed up, so let’s do nothing and sing kumbaya?

Next time, let’s go back to the British rule or even the Indus valley civilization :rolleyes:

no khilaari, i want to note that when peopel talk about these things that they see that it is a trend in our political leadership, thathas continued with whoever has been in power whether it was ZulfiqAR, Zia, nawaz or even musharraf.

Musharraf leaving is not goigng to solve the problem, it will be the same problem but a diff face.

so its not just a question of lets do nothing and sing kumbaya, but is a question of realizing that just removing him from power is nto goingt o turn us into switzerland..singling kumbaya is lame, u can do it.

as far as indus valley civilizationa nd brits go, I was not there to personally see the impact of their rule, but saw the hell during the rule of benazir so can understand why just a civilian govt in power is not the answer to the problems..committed leaders are teh answer...and looking at our political spectrum I dont see any.

maybe just elect edhi or someone

Fraudz,

What you keep missing is the following:

  1. Musharraf is the one in power now and he is the one who said he would be better than his predecessors.

  2. People like you and many others supported Musharraf when he did the coup (I don't know your personal view at that time, so I'll not comment on you personally)

  3. If Musharraf is no better than his predecessors, then why the heck should he be in power using these blatantly shameful tactics?

We have seen the same corruption, same or probably worse violence and more poverty under Musharraf than before. So why are people still supporting him blindly?

musharraf is in power, true
ios he better than his predecessors...some think yes some think no. I dont think he is some great savior like many but surely think that he is better than the clowns before him.

Actually I did not support teh coup, i did not knw what to make of it.

Is musharraf no better than his predecessors..hmmm, i think he is better. but again he did nto have to do a whole lot to be better then them. Lets just hold them to the same standards.

whereas u say that if he is not better ehy should he be here, and I say if others are no better why bother removing him :)

as far as violence goes the conditions are very different, the ethnic violence that was a daily event all the way from zia to early days of nawaz is miniscule compared to what it was at its prime. I dont think the previous regimes would have been able to handle the current extremists as well either.

why are people supporting him blindly, i dunno..why do people support benazir blindly..

I have no interest in supporting him blindly, but just saying he needs to go and things will be okay is a bit simplistic..who will be next and how this person will act is kinda important.

surely I dont want to see ppl like Benazir back in power. it would be out of the frying pan into the fire really.

When you say "if others are no better why bother removing him" you assume that we have a set of leaders that play musical chairs. That is false.

Gen.Musharraf came to power promising to be better than his predecessors. He has been exactly the same if not worse. His only "achievement" is the economy which is a halwa donation from Amrika bahadur.

We need fresh leadership. 5 years is enough for Gen.Musharraf.

all the ppl who think or say "seized power" make me wanna cry, for i cant bear them talking on politics when they fail to retain some imp FACT from just 4-5 years ago!
Musharraf DID NOT TOPPLE THE FREEAKING GOVT!
the country was practically leadreless for a few hours on 12 Oct 1999, when the PM Nawaz Sharif began playing King in Islamic republic of Pakistan. the Corps Commanders took rightful action and took custody of the ppl invloved in the unauthorized actiion and when the illegally fired COAS landed in karachi, he was the only person on whose shoulders the reponsibilty of leading this nation of fools was thrust! what did the flag bearers of democracy want at that time? i remember watching jubilant faces everywhere on the media and everyone admits, every one was full of joy on getting rid of the inept govt. ppl distributed mithai. ironically there was a similar scene everywhere 3 yrs before that when Leghari toppled BB! so i gues its the ppl who are crazy. they just get sick of everyone and are smart enough to call the old error players back, aggain! so what did the ppl want Mush to do on 12 Oct 99? did they expect him to obey the illegal orders of his removal? or did they expect him to continue as COAS under NS as if nothing had happened? ppl actually wanted him to PUNISH NS severely for his WRONGDOINGS! not against Mush, but against the people. but today everyone seems to have fortgotten the misdeeds done during his time and during that of BB and aks for restoration of 'democracy'! whatever that means here. crazy! and remember how ppl wre mad at Mush in 2000 when he let the Sharifs go to KSAA unhurt? ppl were mad cause they wanted him to punish them for their misdeeds against pakistan and pakistanis! but Lo and Behold! today when the country needs the man Mush the most, the same ppl want to get rid of him. believe me, if Mush goes, all hopes for a better pakistan vanish. ppl may disagree but it is the truth and thats the way it is!
sure there are a lot of problems, sure he cant solve verything at once, but he definitely is better than all we have had in the past! he is our last hope. if ppl fail to picture the scenario that will shape up if Mush gets out of the scene today, im afraid such ppl have no right to think and comment on Pakistans politics as they lack reasoning ability and political know how.
all the crocodiles of politics, local and foreign have their eyes set on pakistan. we'll be destroyed.

[QUOTE]

*If Musharraf is really interested in the well-being of this country then he should send his soldiers back into their barracks and let the politicians govern this country. *

agreed, and he should make sure that before he leaves that he leaves a system in place that does not bring back the self serving, corrupt politicians like benazir and company who may get in power thru voting but sure act more like dictators than elected officials when in power.
[/QUOTE]

but Fraudia,
do you think its easy coming up with such a system? with thee kind of mentality and ppl in power that we have here, i dont think it'll be another atleast 50 yrs before we actually have ppl 'good' enough to run such a system. its a huge responsibility on Mushs hands but is there such a way? even if he desings something, and leaves, as desired by so many, do we really think that system would continue with extreme perfection in the future? the problem is that we just arent ready to leave it all to so called 'democrats'. we have to have a "danda". just as "laaton ke bhoot baaton se nahi maante" ungovernable ppl and politicians have to be governed by a general's baton. at the moment, although unnatural, his complete rule over pakistan is necessary. do we have another option? an option that will keep everything balanced? i see no one able or "imaandar" enough.

shwaiz, Khilaari,
if mush is such a bad guy, such a hypocrite, who as per your intelect has been the hero of our lands since creation...?

and, why do you fail to understand why Mush cant reverse to a normal political system!? is it that hard to decipher?
can you imagine what will happen the moment he steps down or becomes a civilian...? if the civil rulers are so able to rule, what made the country into such a mess!?
and lets not talk about coflict between word and action. he is MUCH more honests than our previous rulers.

*Originally posted by Haris Zuberi: *

*but Fraudia,
do you think its easy coming up with such a system? *

No its not going to be easy, but that does not mean that we do not strive for that. everything worth doing is not always easy.

if we had an independent judiciary system, politicians could be tried and convicted for corruption etc, and anyone with a criminal record like that would not be able to to hold public office. That should clear up much of a kacchra koora.

I've never been a supporter of NS or BB, let me efface this doubt from the minds of some people here.

Military should abandon its bad habit of hijacking this country every two years and interfering in the country's politics. It has only worsened the situation everytime. In Pakistan the institutions are to such an extent weak that they cannot control the wrongdoings of the politicians. A prime minister sends his hooligans to attack the Supreme Court or replaces the election commisioner and nobody is there to stop him. Musharraf had a good opportunity to punish that prime minister for his actus reus and it would have been a good lesson for all transgressors. But what does he do? He makes some secret agreements with him and let him live in luxury in a foreign country. Army took over the reigns to save this country from corrupt politicians and now the cream dela cream of those corrupt politicias are in cahoots with the army. Last five years of army rule affirms that army rule is not a permanent solution of corrupt polticians. Every dictator gave the same lame excuses for his putsch and promised the earth but failed to deliver. Like his predecessors, Mushaaraf is also not indispensable for this country.

The only solution of all this mess is strong institutions. We need to strengthen our democratic institutions and everybody knows the prerequisite is democracy per se.

Haris: I don't support the removal of Musharraf by unconstitutional means, but his dropping for reform over power has turned him into someone as power hungry as Nawaz Sharif or BB.

The rationale for supporting Musharraf was based on a few concepts:

  • 1) He is a liberal man progressive etc *

Yes he is liberal personally and liberal in the causes he supports. That's where it ends, most of his dealings have been with right wing groups like the MMA and the late Azam Tariq. So in the rest of his politics he is more of an opportunist than the democratic PM's before him because unlike them he has no real constituency.

  • 2) There is no other option *

I've heard this line repeated like a broken record, Pakistan has survived the death of it's founder, dismemberment, Mr 10%, the storming of the Supreme Court and much worse, so why can't it survive if Musharraf leaves tomorrow?

  • 3) He is not corrupt *

Yes, he is not corrupt in the monetery sense, but he is corrupt in his pursuit of power and because of that pursuit, he has surrounded himself with corrupt people who only need a year to do what NS and BB did in 10. Those of you who think corruption of power is not such a bad thing, remember one thing, corruption of power destroys nations, while corruption of money starves them.

  • 4) Nobody else could have gotten us through September 11th *

Well the general consensus is that almost any leader would have made the same choice as he did. It would have been political and national suicide for any leader to do anything else.

  • 5) The economy *

Yes, Shaukat Aziz has done a good job, he has done a good job, yet I would argue something else, Aziz is a fine example of what committed civilians can do. His success in fact destroys the argument that the Army is the only institution that can deliver results.

Musharraf, in his speech delivered on Oct 17, 1999, pledged to implement these seven points. Only economy has been rejuvenated partly, and that is also because of 9-11. Read the last paragraph carefully, this paragraph comes in his speech right after the seven points.
**
1. Rebuild national confidence and morale.

2. Strengthen federation, remove inter provincial disharmony and restore national cohesion.

3. Revive economy and restore investor confidence.
4. Ensure law and order and dispense speedy justice.
5. Depoliticise state institutions.
6. Devolution of power to the grass roots level.

7. Ensure swift and across the board accountability.

Good governance is the pre-requisite to achieve these objectives. In the past, our governments have ruled the people. It is time now for the governments to serve the people.**

did anyone watch Gen Mushs interview with Talat husain on ARY yesterday. it was a very nice interview done very well. perhaps one of Gen Mush's best ever. the things i wrote here reflect almost phrase to phrase what he said in the interview while replying to diff questions. and i had written all the above stuff BEFORE watching the interview.

Fraudia,
yes, youre right, and i agree that we have to work on restoring the institutions. but the problem is that we dont have to "restore" the intitutions etc. we have to "build" them up from scrap, cause accept it or not, there never has been any proper noncorrupt institution here. so that all cant be just done with a magic spell within 5 yrs, that ppl say M<ush hasnt delivered and he has to go...if we're really serious about rebuilding etc we have to let him work his way. even antimuush ppl agree that he has done atleast some good which the past rulers civil or uniformed didnt. let him continue with peeace and maybe ina few more yrs there will be more technocrats, less beurucrats. less feudals, more ordinary men. more honest and less corrupt...

Shawaiz,
yes, military rule has never been the long term solution, but evert 2 yrs, as you say, the conditions of the country were made so panicy by the rulers that miltary had to take over. and lets not fortget its always the civil opposition that encourages the army chief to take such measures. and with mush, it was all a game of luck! he didnt plan the coup, it happend! and happend at the right time and ppl welcomed it.
and about the punishing of NS. yes, i think NS should have hanged! or atleats should have been put in jail for a 100 yrs. Mush could have easily done that. NS tried to kill him and few 100 oithers. he used his powers illegally. his actions could have lead to civil war etc and so he can be sentenced for treason. there wre a 100 ways for Mush to punish NS and his loyalists. but i bet had he done any of the above mentioned, ppl would have condemned him like they condemn Ziauulhaq for hanging Bhutto for the Murder of Kasuri. ppl would have said Mush punished NS for his personal grudge. look how every one thinks Javed hashmi is the most innocent man to ever wal;k pakistans soil. NS and co. had been in jail for a year before the saudis rescued them in turn for aid to Pakistan. Mush made the right choice. however i do think he should send them into exile for 50 yrs. nopt just 10. same goes for BB.

Zakk,
do we need just survival like it was until 1999 or wouild you care for some respect in the world, a better economy a hope for a better prosperous pakistan?

and the reason he hangs on to power is simple; as he said in his interviw yesterday, when there is no harmony among politicians, no responsible noncorrupt ppl, no proper functioning institutions, total chaos, there has to be one supreme authority to take matters into control and thats where a uniformed COAS comes into the seen. he said living in Utopia is useless, we have to take a look at the ground realities in pakistan and then suggest who should rule and how.
and about the 9/11 handling; well, im not sure if anyone else would have handled it as well as he did. any civil govt would have been formed in alliance, to a significant level, with the Mullahs, which are currently known as the MMA factor. we all know how thee Mullah brain works...
and Shaukat Aziz; yes he's the man! but who brought him? Mush did! did any PM of the past ever employ such an expert, such a dedicated, noncorrupt, sincere devoted and intelligent Finance Minister with asuch an excellent background...? all FMs of the past were close allies of the PMs. if i remember right, all have had cases of scams against them...
and yeah, Shaukat Aziz didnt take a single rupee as salary for his first stint as FM. i'm not sure if he does now from the election onwards.

Its time Mushy crushed the religious right in Pakistan. Moderate Islam is true Islam, we cannot have these guys undermining the security of Pakistan.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by shawaiz: *
Military should abandon its bad habit of hijacking this country every two years and interfering in the country's politics. It has only worsened the situation everytime.

[/QUOTE]

Comparing Pakistan in September 1999 under the despotism of Nawaz Sharif against Pakistan today under what is admittedly Musharraf's authoritarian rule, I can only see a country that is better off than before in many, many ways. First and foremost amongst these is the economy, but under Nawaz Sharif Pakistan was moved into virtual pariah status for its nuclear power - a status that Musharraf has managed to throw off.

I'm not advocating that military rule has always been good for Pakistan (we've had more than our fair share of incompetent army dictators), but the past 5 years have, to me, proven that the current military-guided administration has done a much better job of running Pakistan than any government, dictatorship or democracy, has for many decades past.