SONYA FATAH

The Toronto Star, November 20, 2007
Sonya Fatah

LAHORE, Pakistan–A counter-coup from within the military puts President Gen. Pervez Musharraf under house arrest.

The country’s vice army chief has resigned.

Cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan has been murdered by the country’s intelligence agencies.

With Pakistan’s rumour mill working in overdrive under emergency rule, it’s becoming harder than ever to separate fact from fiction. Draconian regulations imposed by the country’s military rulers have muzzled the media, forcing Pakistanis to rely on the word of mouth – and its modern equivalent, the cellphone text message – as a source of news.

The rumour mill has long been a font of information for Pakistan’s 160 million people, as it is in many developing countries where censorship restrains the media. But the latest strictures on Pakistan’s previously vigorous media have created an information vacuum that is perfect for wild rumour.

Musharraf was its first target. As police went about making mass arrests, a rumour swept through Pakistan’s urban centres that the general had been put under house arrest. “Musharraf has been toppled in a counter-coup,” read one mass mailing as word spread.

With no television media to confirm or deny the rumour and government officials keeping mum, the news quickly gained credibility.

The tall tale forced Musharraf to demonstrate he was in control and he called the rumour “a joke of the highest order.”

“It’s very confusing to glean what is true and what is not,” said Anam Anjum, 17, a student of graphic design at the University of Punjab.

And so, the rumour mill churns on.

“Musharraf flees country in an American plane,” was one message that made its rounds in the early days of emergency rule. Then, Gen. Kayani, the vice army chief, was said to have resigned.

When former cricket star Imran Khan escaped house arrest a week ago, news quickly spread that he hadn’t gotten free. Rather, he’d been murdered by the country’s ruthless intelligence agencies.

When, days later, he emerged, unscathed, at a student protest rally on the University of Punjab’s campus, that story was put to bed.

Rumour-mongering isn’t unusual in developing societies, says Dr. Gulzar Shah, an associate professor of sociology at Lahore University of Management Sciences.

It’s not just political news and conjecture that is passed on from person to person in developing societies, says Shah.

“People are reliant on informal institutions for everything. They borrow money from friends and family, not banks. Their parents and relatives babysit their children, not babysitters. Even news is preferred by word of mouth.”

Still, rumours aren’t always innocent by-products of a complicated political situation. Often, they are planted by the government itself or by opposition parties to create exactly that result.

Last September when Musharraf was on an overseas trip, a massive power outage set off rumours of a coup. Many Pakistanis saw him as masquerading a book tour in the United States and Canada as an official trip paid for by Pakistan’s not-so-healthy coffers. It was not difficult to believe that unhappy generals in the military’s top brass had unseated him.

“Rumours do very well when people have no reason to believe formal sources of information,” says Shah. “A rumour can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Its consequence can be very real and it can be used to shift the balance in someone else’s favour.”

Now that Pakistan’s most-watched news channel, GEO TV, has been shut down and the government’s most articulate critics are in police or intelligence custody, the rumour mill is likely to churn up plenty more good yarns.

“The name Musharraf makes my blood boil,” said a storeowner in Lahore’s busy Anarkali bazaar. “But anyway, it doesn’t matter any more. I have it from a top source that he is on his way out. The military had had it with him.”

Popularity: 2% [?]

Many have little faith in leaders they suspect are fighting for their own vested interests
The Toronto Star, November 17, 2007
Sonya Fatah

LAHORE, Pakistan–While Pakistan’s politicians are jockeying for power and preening for the press, many of the country’s 160 million people are coming to see the fracas as a farce. The result is increasing disillusionment, frustration and apathy on the streets of major cities.

“I’m so confused about what is going on in the country right now,” said a law student at the University of Punjab in Lahore who did not want to be named.

“One day, (opposition leader Benazir) Bhutto says something; the next day she says the complete opposite. (President Pervez) Musharraf says he is going to stay as Pakistan’s leader. Then he says he might leave.”

Many Pakistanis believe that the events of the last few weeks are an elaborate drama scripted in the United States and staged under its direction. Whatever the results, many say they feel alienated from the political process, and have little faith in leaders they believe are fighting for their own vested interests.

“Our elite class is entirely in charge,” said Agha Mohammad Ayaz, 54, a Lahore-based businessman. “The rest of us have no ability to influence the law or anything. If that system doesn’t change, and the issues aren’t addressed, we’re heading for disaster.”

A history of misleading, unaccountable leaders has hobbled the political system.

“We’ve got no leaders,” said Karachi-based columnist Ardeshir Cowasjee, 81, rattling off the names of politicians and their transgressions.

“We have Benazir Bhutto – she’s robbed the nation. Then we have Altaf Hussein – he’s an extortionist. Nawaz Sharif? He thinks that he is God’s son. We have Imran Khan, who can play good cricket and otherwise nothing.”

Not surprisingly, the absence of effective, sustained leadership has also alienated youth across the country.

“I don’t really care what happens when this whole drama is over,” said Azqa Rehamn, 18, a second-year art student at Punjab University.

“There are a lot of people here who don’t even know who the prime minister is right now. And frankly we don’t care.”

As the political crisis worsens, an elaborate spin campaign is fostering widespread cynicism.

The government of Punjab, Pakistan’s richest and most populous state, for instance, is on a mission to flaunt its accomplishments.

The faces of Musharraf and the chief minister of Punjab, Pervaiz Elahi, peer out from massive hoardings and cloth banners fluttering in Lahore’s wintry breeze.

“Golden Age of Prosperity” boasts one advertisement. In another one, Punjabi farmers look relaxed and happy as they watch a farmer dance in joy. In the background are endless fields of lush green crops.

“They think we’re dumb,” said Salahuddin, 46, a driver with a cab company at Lahore’s Farooq Hotel.

“They think we can be slapped around like sheep but it’s no longer true. The public has become much wiser to the ways of our politicians.”

Fact is, the Pakistani public no longer has to digest censored news or propaganda from the state-run news channel. Ever since the 2003 media revolution, ushered in by Musharraf himself, many have tuned in to private local channels that give unvarnished news accounts.

Many feel cut off in other ways. As Musharraf quashes student and political activity by erecting roadblocks, he prevents ordinary people from reaching their workplaces or homes.

“I just want to get to my village,” an elderly woman pleaded at a police barricade on an interstate motorway that was two kilometres from her home, on the day that Bhutto was supposed to lead a march from Lahore to Islamabad.

Along with her elderly mother, she and countless others waited seven hours by the side of the road before the barricade was removed.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Key differences in ideology, leadership may explain why Indians succeed where Pakistanis often fail
The Toronto Star, November 15, 2007
Sonya Fatah

LAHORE, Pakistan–Why has India thrived as a democracy for nearly six decades, while neighbouring Pakistan has been plagued by chronic military coups since British India was partitioned in 1947?

Sharp differences in political leadership, ideology and social institutions help explain why India has largely succeeded where Pakistan has perennially failed.

The intensely secular and staunchly democratic Jawaharlal Nehru led India for the first 17 years of its existence, arguably the most difficult period in the country’s history. There were others too – men like Sardar Vallabhai Patel who cut across caste and class lines and formed the core of India’s leadership.

By contrast, Pakistan lost its founding father, the secular-minded Mohammad Ali Jinnah, within a mere 13 months of its existence. Its first prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, was assassinated in October 1951.

“Pakistan died with Jinnah,” says Ardeshir Cowasjee, 81, a newspaper columnist who has spent much of his life pressing for the rule of law in Pakistan.

Into the breach stepped a succession of military men.

Gen. Mohammad Ayub Khan took the country’s reins in 1958 and stayed in charge for 11 years. After a turbulent decade following Jinnah’s death, people welcomed Khan, who gave the country much-needed stability.

Close on Khan’s heels came Gen. Yahya Khan, whose four-year stint oversaw the country’s disastrous 1971 war that ended with the loss of East Pakistan and the birth of Bangladesh.

After a rare few years of democratic rule, Gen. Mohammad Zia ul-Haq staged a coup and began a U.S.-backed 11-year reign marked by the Islamization of the country that haunts Pakistan till today.

In his recent hefty book on India’s contemporary history, India After Gandhi, historian Ramachandra Guha wonders “what would (Jinnah and Liaquat Ali) have done if they had enjoyed power as long as Nehru, and if they had had the kind of supporting cast that he did?”

India’s leaders propelled the country forward through radical land reform, particularly in the states of Punjab and Haryana. Those reforms broke the traditional grip of landlords who had massive holdings and ran political fiefdoms, exploiting low-caste groups.

It wasn’t a success everywhere. In India’s Bihar state, for instance, the government’s failure to implement reforms gave steam to the often-violent Naxalite rebel movement. Despite that, India’s diversity has thrown up leaders from outside the elites, even in Bihar state, demonstrating that in India politicians can represent the disenfranchised.

Pakistan’s story is very different.

Although reforms were attempted during two different governments, they were never implemented. Most of Pakistan’s political class, including Oxford-educated Benazir Bhutto, represents its feudal aristocracy – large families in possession of thousands of hectares of land, who run their estates as absentee landlords.

In this nation of 160 million, it is hard to think of an influential leader who has risen from Pakistan’s largely poor masses.

Instead, there remains a brittle alliance between the military, industrialists, Islamists and feudals.

India’s other advantage was the former colonial administrative machine that bound the nation through a unified civil structure.

“The Indian Administrative Service had all the paraphernalia that goes with government – administration, tax collection, law and order,” says retired Brig. Rao Abid Hamid, who now works at the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

“It allowed for a healthy transition.”

Across the border, Pakistan didn’t have enough qualified officers to outfit its civil service. It had lost its Hindu and Sikh elite, who had previously staffed the bureaucracy.

“The only functioning, healthy institution in Pakistan was the army and that was misused.”

That tradition of misuse continues in Pakistan today.

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf is flexing his military muscle to prevent popular political parties from campaigning, demonstrating or organizing themselves.

In India, the independent election commission has pushed hard to ensure elections are free and fair.

When India’s Uttar Pradesh held its election recently, the commission sent in 72,000 paramilitary troops to prevent political gangs from disrupting the polling process for the state’s 190 million people.

Not surprisingly, Indians cherish their ability to vote their leaders into or out of power.

“India has got into the habit of democracy,” said Khushwant Singh, 92, one of India’s best-known authors and political analysts.

“We were lucky to have prime ministers who were committed to democracy … Today, we have politicians who are second-rate people but they are at least honest by the constitution.”

Popularity: 2% [?]

The Toronto Star, November 14, 2007
Sonya Fatah

LAHORE, Pakistan–Despite Benazir Bhutto’s declaration yesterday that she won’t work with President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, skeptics doubt the opposition leader has finished talking with him.

After months of failed backdoor negotiations, Bhutto said she’s finally cut the cord with Musharraf, after the country’s military ruler declared her Lahore base a “sub-jail” and put her under house arrest for the second time in five days.

“Negotiations between us have broken down over the massive use of police force … There’s no question now of getting this back on track because anyone who is associated with Gen. Musharraf gets contaminated,” Bhutto said after confirming that any deal between Musharraf and her party was now a non-starter.

Instead, Bhutto is working to forge a partnership with Nawaz Sharif, whom Musharraf overthrew as prime minister in a 1999 coup. She hopes to create a coalition of opposition to lead a civil disobedience movement and to boycott the country’s upcoming elections, which Musharraf has said will be held by Jan. 9.

But a Musharraf ally says Bhutto “talks one thing but walks in a different way.

“She knows the election result will be different from what she thought,” said Railways Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed. “That is why she is trying to create a disturbance.”

Britain stepped up international pressure on Musharraf, who imposed emergency rule on Nov. 3 in a move seen aimed at clinging on to power, backing a 10-day Commonwealth ultimatum for him to end the emergency and quit as army chief, something he said he would do once the new hand-picked Supreme Court affirms his recent re-election as president.

Bhutto also yesterday demanded Musharraf’s resignation as president. Musharraf countered that Bhutto “has no right” to ask him to resign, and said she has an exaggerated view of her popular support.

Whatever her motive, Bhutto’s declaration seems to dash hopes that the two moderate leaders would form an alliance to confront strengthening Islamic extremists.

Musharraf has defended emergency rule as necessary to curb political unrest he says is hampering the government’s fight against Taliban- and Al Qaeda-linked militants, who have been gaining the upper hand in the country’s northwest along the border with Afghanistan.

The deepening political crisis set off alarm bells in Washington, where support for a Musharraf-Bhutto deal is said to be strong. The White House has criticized Musharraf’s crackdown on dissent but sees him as a dependable partner in the fight against Al Qaeda.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte is expected to be in Pakistan soon to pressure Musharraf into lifting the emergency.

“The United States is urging your government not to throw away in weeks what it has taken years to achieve,” said Anne Patterson, U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, while addressing the National Defence University in Islamabad.

The White House said it still hoped Pakistan’s “moderate elements” could unite, despite Bhutto saying she would not try to work with Musharraf.

“The international community needs to decide whether it will go with one man or the people of Pakistan,” said Bhutto, a two-time prime minister.

As she conducted telephone interviews, thousands of riot police stood guard outside, barricading the residence where she is staying and a one-kilometre stretch alongside it, with a long row of metal barricades and barbed wire.

The house arrest took place Monday night, hours before Bhutto was to lead a people’s march from Lahore to Islamabad. Scores of Pakistan People’s Party activists were rounded up as a 20,000 strong police force tried to prevent the PPP’s public show of strength.

Insiders suggested that Musharraf’s latest spate of autocratic actions, seen by many as a last ditch effort to preserve his rule, might have sealed his fate.

“He is in a state of denial and defiance,” said Sardar Assef Ahmed Ali, who served as foreign minister under Bhutto. “Benazir tried her best and I think she’s landed well. She co-operated with the army at great political cost but his response has been so unreasonable that she now has to take Musharraf head on.”

Indeed, Bhutto worked on building alliances with the country’s opposition leaders to form a democracy movement. She is reaching out to Sharif, who is in exile in Saudi Arabia; Asfundyar Wali Khan of the Awami National League; former cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan; and Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the leader of the largest Islamist party in Pakistan.

Sharif welcomed Bhutto’s comments and urged opposition parties to unite against Musharraf.

“That is the need of the hour because single-handedly to fight dictatorship is going to be a difficult task,” he said.

The proposed coalition plans to lead a civil disobedience movement and to boycott the country’s upcoming elections.

“An elections boycott will illustrate Musharraf’s sham government and make a mockery of the political process,” said Tariq Rahim, a former governor of Lahore state.

More than 200 cars set off on the 280-kilometre journey between Lahore and Islamabad, despite Bhutto’s arrest, in a symbolic show of party strength.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s state television kept Pakistani viewers as much out of the loop as possible. State news highlighted the country’s economic success and investment opportunities.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Musharraf urged to lift state of emergency within a week as police continue crackdown
The Toronto Star, November 08, 2007
Sonya Fatah

LAHORE, Pakistan–Former prime minister Benazir Bhutto toughened her stance against President Gen. Pervez Musharraf yesterday, giving the military ruler a week to end the state of emergency in Pakistan.

Bhutto rallied her supporters yesterday, as U.S. President George W. Bush applied his own pressure, saying he talked to Musharraf, a key ally in his war on terror, and urged him to hold elections and quit as army chief. It was the first time Bush had spoken directly to Musharraf since the leader of nuclear-armed Pakistan declared the state of emergency Saturday.

Pakistan government officials have said January elections will be held on time. A member of Musharraf’s inner circle said emergency rule was likely to be lifted within two or three weeks. But Musharraf, who is to be sworn in a week from today for a new presidential term, has not personally confirmed this.

Bhutto urged her supporters to defy Musharraf’s ban on demonstrations and attend a rally tomorrow in Rawalpindi. After that, she said, opponents of emergency rule would begin a 320-kilometre march Tuesday from the eastern city of Lahore to the capital, Islamabad.

“Gen. Musharraf can open the door for negotiations only if he revives the constitution, retires as chief of army staff and sticks to the schedule of holding elections,” Bhutto told reporters at a news conference in Islamabad.

Police fired tear gas shells and beat about 400 of Bhutto’s party workers when they tried to break through police barriers outside parliament in Islamabad after the news conference.

The demonstrators pulled back through the choking gas, chanting “Benazir! Benazir!” and “Down with the emergency!”

Her supporters should expect the same type of reception tomorrow at the planned rally. Police would be out in force to prevent anyone reaching the park where Bhutto hoped to address supporters, said Rawalpindi Mayor Javed Akhlas.

There was also a “strong threat” of another suicide attack against Bhutto, said Akhlas. Bhutto said she would take the risk, and renewed her charge that elements in the government and security forces were in cahoots with Islamist extremists trying to kill her. Militants were widely blamed for last month’s failed attempt on her life, which killed about 140 people.

Bhutto said religious militants feared her as “the only leader in Pakistan who has a national base who can confront them.”

Bhutto’s strong words signal a change in party strategy, setting up a confrontation with Musharraf, not long after the two were engaged in power-sharing talks.

Insiders say Bhutto is torn between representing the people’s voice and negotiating for power with the president. She stepped up her criticism of Musharraf’s government yesterday, insisting her demands be met if there is to be any transition to democracy.

Most of Pakistan’s military comes from the Punjab, a province in which the armed forces have been careful to avoid ugly confrontations with residents.

By leading a march from Lahore to Islamabad, both in the rich land of the Punjab, Bhutto is challenging Musharraf’s strength. Any unrest in the province as a result of Bhutto’s “long march” could turn Musharraf’s military leaders against him, analysts say.

Sources close to Bhutto and the government revealed she and Musharraf were exchanging memos in a bid to keep a much-weakened negotiation process afloat. In a communication to Bhutto yesterday, Musharraf is alleged to have offered Nov. 30 as the date for ending the emergency.

Arrests continued in the country’s main cities of Lahore and Karachi, where small groups of lawyers and human rights activists kept up protests. Virtually all of the government’s vocal critics have been rounded up and jailed.

In Washington, Bush brushed off criticism he was taking a softer line on Pakistan than he did, for instance, against Burma where military rulers cracked down on pro-democracy protesters in late September.

Bush defended his response to both situations.

“Look, our objective is the same in Burma as it is in Pakistan, and that is to promote democracy,” he said. “There is a difference, however. Pakistan has been on the path to democracy. Burma hadn’t been on the path to democracy. And it requires different tactics to achieve the common objective.”

Popularity: 2% [?]