My open letter to ISI, Dr Shabir Choudhry

My open letter to ISI, Dr Shabir Choudhry

London         12 November 2016

Some people promote your secret agency, as world’s number one secret agency; also very brave and efficient. I wonder if that is true

Your allegation is that on instructions of India I am sabotaging CPEC; and that is why you have instructed NADRA not to renew my NICOP – ID card, which is essentially evidence of existence of the card holder; and without it one cannot function in Pakistan and in Pakistani occupied territories of Jammu and Kashmir State.

I examined role of the ISI in my article written on 23 May 2011 with the following title:  ISI is the best secret agency, is it? I am providing you a link to that article, in case you have not read it. Just to remind you that at that time there was no CPEC, hence, no alleged instructions from any quarter to write about your role.

http://drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/isi-is-best-secret-agency-is-it.html

By blocking renewal of my ID card, you successfully deprived me to accompany dead body of my father and take part in his funeral and burial. On 15 June 2015, I applied for renewal of my card and my father died on 29 August 2015 in England, and his body was taken back to our village in Pakistani occupied Kashmir in District Bhimber.

On 29 August 2016, as a devout Muslims belonging to Hanfi Fiq we arranged annual Khatem for my beloved father, where we invited hundreds of other Muslims of the area to recite holy Quran and Darood Paak; and seek forgiveness of Allah SWT. Again thanks to your great work, I was unable to take part in this function and visit grave of my beloved father. On this great achievement you should feel proud and ask the government to give you an achievement medal.

Do you think by doing all this you have won my mind and heart, and have generated goodwill? No. You have generated more anger and resentment against you; and I feel I need to work harder to expose your imperial designs on my motherland where you will always be seen as an occupier. How would you feel if your father dies and you are restricted to take part in his funeral and burial?

We read papers that in Pakistan, hate preachers, terrorists and those who kill police and army men generously get passports and NADRA cards; and that is not anti Pakistan. My ID card is blocked because I am not hate preacher; I am not a terrorist and I am not a killer. This policy will haunt you for many years.

Your bravery

One can see your bravery and ruthlessness from the above and the following. You know I am not a violent or an aggressive person. I don’t carry gun or any kind of weapon with me; despite this you want to curb my right to travel and right to visit my home village and meet my relatives and friends because you are afraid of me. You are afraid of my pen. You are afraid of my communication skills.

Is it not shameful to your ‘brave and best agency’ to be afraid of 63 years old man with serious health issues; and who is in high risk category? I have endured two heart attacks. I have five stents in my arteries. My left lung is 80% not working. I suffer from sever and consistent attacks of Vertigo, which makes it difficult to control my body balance. I have a hole in my left eardrum, and also I have blood pressure.

Do you feel proud that you have restricted movements of a person with multiple health issues, and who wanted to go back to his village and spend retirement there? Before your great work of blocking issuance of my ID card, I was seriously considering to end my political activities because my health was and is deteriorating. I had problems even walking 100 yards; or walk to my bedroom on first floor. But thanks to your actions I had to continue my work, as I didn’t want to give you this pleasure that by your one move Dr Shabir Choudhry has surrendered.

Your allegations

Thinking people of Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan know authenticity of your illogical and fake allegations which depicts sick mentality. These absurd allegations don’t merit a reply. It is part of Pakistani political culture to accuse political opponents of being ‘anti state’, or ‘agent’ of someone, especially ‘agent of India’. No one needs any evidence to level this allegation, all one needs is a big mouth, misplaced loyalty and fractured conscience.

It is part of Pakistani culture of your country to accuse political opponents of being anti state, agents of India, America, Russia and Jews etc; and accuse religious opponents as kaffirs? Just look at the following leaders and tags they have:

1.      Wasn’t Fatima Jinnah, sister of Mohammed Ali Jinnah accused of being an Indian agent?

2.      Isn’t Nawaz Sharif, three times elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, accused of being an Indian agent?

3.      Isn’t Imran Khan accused of being a Jewish agent?

4.      Isn’t Dr Tahir Ul Qadri accused of being a Canadian and an American agent?

5.      Furthermore, both of these are accused to have met in India to plan infamous dharnas, which in a way, make them Indian agents?

6.      Wasn’t General Musharaf accused of being an American agent?

7.      Don’t Generals like Kiani, Pasha, Ayub Khan, Zia Ul Haq and many others carry tags as being American agents?

8.      Wasn’t late Benazir Bhutto declared as a security risk?

There is a long list of people who were accused of being agents of someone. After reading this, do you feel any remorse; or is that too much to expect?

I am a Kashmiri patriot

I am not a Pakistani; and article 257 of Constitution acknowledges this fact. I don’t have to express loyalty to those who occupy my country. I am a loyal citizen of State of Jammu and Kashmir. I strongly feel that the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir should emerge as an impendent country. Throughout my adult life I have worked for this cause; and by grace of Allah SWT, to date, I have not done anything to harm my cause.

Yes, I criticise those who occupy my country; and I have every right to do that. I criticise foot soldiers of the occupiers who work against interests of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir.

I have authored more than 57 books and booklets on Jammu and Kashmir, and India Pakistan relations. I challenge my critics to find me a paragraph where I have expressed my desire to be part of India; even though, thanks to Pakistan we people of Jammu and Kashmir have only two choices: become a Pakistani or an Indian. Find me a paragraph or a sentence where I have said the areas of Jammu and Kashmir under India are not disputed. To me and my colleagues the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed; and our struggle is for unification and independence of the State that existed on 16 August 1947.

 Hypocrisy of Pakistani officials is that they have left us with only two choices – join India or Pakistan; and if people express their desire to become part of India – a right given to them by Pakistan and the UN, then they accuse them of being traitor, unpatriotic and anti Pakistan.

You people are angry because of my research and hard work I have systematically exposed Pakistan’s hypocrisy and double standards on Jammu and Kashmir. I have also exposed their imperial designs and systematic exploitation of our resources.

As a loyal son of the soil it is my duty to use my knowledge and experience to promote and safeguard interest of people of State of Jammu and Kashmir.

I know you have created lakhs of mental slaves in Jammu and Kashmir and in Gilgit Baltistan to serve your interests. Let me tell you, I need no certificate of patriotism from you. My dream to retire and spend last years of my life in my home village is shattered because of your unwise and unwarranted actions.

What you are doing with regard to renewal of my NADRA card is legally 100% incorrect. You have gone a step further, and refused to renew NADRA card of my daughter who has nothing to do with politics. She is married and lives with her husband and children separately. She is a practising lawyer and a law abiding citizen. Under the UNCIP Resolutions you are obliged to protect our political and social rights, and not curb them.

I did not want this war with you; but you have imposed this war on me. This should be a war of all citizens of Jammu and Kashmir who want an independent Jammu and Kashmir. I have two options, either surrender to you because you are too powerful, or fight back. I have decided not to surrender. I may not win, but I will prove to you that all citizens of Jammu and Kashmir are not mental slaves or cowherds; and above all we are not for sale.

By taking this choice I know I could be eliminated like Saleem Shehzad or Arif Shahid. Despite that, I will fight back your imperialism and arrogance, because my desire to see you exposed is stronger than my desire to live

Writer is a political analyst, TV anchor and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs; Chairman South Asia Watch.  Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com   

Gen Raheel Sharif plans judicial coup against Nawaz

Gen Raheel Sharif plans judicial coup against Nawaz

Analysts in key countries who are engaged in tracking developments in Pakistan warn that GHQ Rawalpindi has initiated a plan to remove Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif before the middle of 2017. Instead of a Musharraf-style military coup, this time around the planning is for the Pakistan Supreme Court to perform the (not very difficult) task of finding Nawaz Sharif guilty of corruption and initiating his prosecution. The grounds given will be the Panama Papers revelations, along with fresh evidence against the Pakistan Prime Minister that has been gathered by GHQ Rawalpindi, including undeclared assets in the United States and Canada. Contrary to those in India who claim that Sharif is insincere about wanting peaceful relations with India, and indeed in contrast to his own fiery rhetoric on Kashmir, these experts say that Sharif has sought to work out a peace agreement with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on the principle that “only hawks can ensure a peace settlement”.

 They say that PM Modi’s gesture of dropping in on the Sharif family for a birthday celebration towards the close of last year “made a big impact on the entire (Sharif) family”, who “saw in Modi a man who could be expected to keep his side of the bargain” in contrast to Manmohan Singh. The 2004-14 Prime Minister is blamed by high-level circles in Islamabad for “making promises which subsequently get forgotten” and in not “walking the talk” on the several secret and overt peace overtures made to Pakistan during the UPA period, including the “Musharraf Formula” of soft borders between the parts of Kashmir held by the two sides, a solution that would allow the migration of several hundred thousand Pashto and Punjabi-speaking settlers across Jammu & Kashmir, thereby strengthening the influence of GHQ Rawalpindi in all corners of the state.

According to these sources, the reason why GHQ seeks to oust Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is that “he is not in favour of an aggressive and adventurous line to match the Modi government’s newfound assertiveness on the Line of Control (LoC)”. Aware of the harmful consequences of any such escalation on the business environment in Pakistan, Sharif is known to have argued against General Raheel Sharif’s call for a “matching response” to recent Indian moves, including the surgical strike on terror camps which took place last month. The Pakistan Prime Minister is known to be against giving an extension to the present Chief of Army Staff, and is seeking to replace him with a Corps Commander “who is junior to at least two other serving generals in the (Pakistan) army”, besides of course General Sharif himself. A key source revealed that “initially the view within the higher command of the Pakistan army was to make the extension of service of the present chief a matter of prestige”, but in September, a Plan B was adopted. This would involve a fresh election in Pakistan, where General Raheel Sharif would take over as the leader of a coalition of parties that would act as a “Third Front” separate from both the PML(Nawaz) and the Zardari-run PPP. The expectation is that the popularity of the present army chief would be sufficient to ensure that this coalition gets a majority in Parliament, especially as there would be a division of votes between the PPP and the PML(N). According to the analysts talked to, GHQ Rawalpindi “has dossiers on every top leader of both the main parties”, and “these would be selectively leaked during the campaign” to contrast them with Raheel Sharif, who has a reputation for integrity. 

These sources claim that Imran Khan’s latest agitation was scripted by GHQ to ensure that the Pakistan Supreme Court took up the matter of Nawaz Sharif’s corruption, thus setting into motion the chain of events expected to end in his downfall. They claim that Imran Khan has reached an understanding with the military to accept the leadership of Raheel Sharif in a future coalition government, in which he would be the Foreign Minister. It may be mentioned that Raheel Sharif has very close contact with both the US and China, and has recently built bridges with Moscow on the recommendation of China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Over the past four years, China has ensured that the Pakistan military retains its strike capability against India, “as the PLA wants to launch a second front, should India join the US and Japan in entering into a conflict with China over the East or South China Sea or over North Korea or Taiwan”. According to the sources spoken to, “Raheel Sharif has promised to open a second front in the event of hostilities between India and China”, despite the fact that such a reciprocal gesture has not been made by Beijing during any of Pakistan’s wars with India. 

A high-level source claimed that “while Raheel Sharif is trusted in Beijing, Nawaz Sharif is not”, thereby implying that Pakistan’s closest ally would have no problem were the present Prime Minister of Pakistan replaced by the Chief of Army Staff, “especially if such a change were to occur through the ballot box”. China is in the process of supplying fifth-generation fighter aircraft to the Pakistan air force “as soon as two squadrons of fourth-generation Rafale aircraft get inducted into the Indian Air Force. Beijing is already co-producing J17 aircraft with Pakistan, and has gifted that country’s navy eight diesel submarines to counter the Indian fleet. Interestingly, General Raheel Sharif has managed to persuade Russia to supply Mi-35 helicopters, using the excuse that these were intended for counter-terror operations in FATA and in parts of Balochistan. Interestingly, together with the move of the military in Pakistan to remove the PM, terrorists from the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, Jamat-ud-Dawa and Jaish-e-Mohammad are openly congregating in cities across Pakistan, even though these are wanted by both the US as well as India. 

Once a new government linked to the Pakistan military gets formed in Islamabad, the intention is to ramp up the “internal insurgency” in Kashmir. In this context, GHQ claims that four districts in south Kashmir have become no-go-zones for police, with those in uniform still present “being rendered frightened and ineffective” by pro-Pakistan groups. GHQ Rawalpindi has asked its men in Kashmir to get hold of police weapons, “so that innocent people can be shot and the police blamed”. More than a hundred such weapons have already been seized by pro-Pakistan elements from the police, “with around two dozen having been handed over voluntarily by police personnel” close to such elements. 

The intent of GHQ Rawalpindi is to “ensure that future acts of violence get perpetrated entirely by home grown terrorists” and not by imports from across the border. In this context, “the effort to make Burhan Wani a heroic martyr is intended to tempt many more such impressionable youth into joining the groups planning to launch a wave of insurgent attacks in Kashmir around the time Nawaz Sharif is removed in Islamabad”. “Along with responding through conventional actions such as sniper fire and rocket shelling from across the LoC, the plan is to intensify terror operations across India and create a climate of insurgency in Kashmir”, claimed an analyst based in the US. These sources say that GHQ Rawalpindi “does not share the feelings of Nawaz Sharif for (PM) Modi, and hence wants to replace him with a substitute who would be supportive of a policy of robust move across the LoC and through proxies the rest of Kashmir”. 

According to them, the present Prime Minister of Pakistan is “counting the days before he is removed from office by the judiciary”.

http://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/7214-gen-raheel-sharif-plans-judicial-coup-against-nawaz

One, two, three - from Mumbai to Pathankot to Uri, the future is being written for us. CYRIL ALMEIDA

One, two, three - from Mumbai to Pathankot to Uri, the future is being written for us. CYRIL ALMEIDA 

ULTIMATELY, they’re going to have to do it. They know it, we know it and the targets do too: decommission the favourites; defang the good ones.

Get rid of militancy.

Think of it as an arc: from Musharraf to Kayani to Raheel to the next chief, a progressive clampdown against groups that had to be taken on.

With Musharraf, it was Al Qaeda — 9/11 changed the world and the world changed how we did business.

From Kayani to Raheel, a second purge — the anti-Pakistan lot. They came after us, so we had to go after them.

And soon the next chief — confronted with the spectre of a roiling Kashmir and the long-term presence of a right-winger in Delhi causing the last line standing to go into agitated motion.

Something will have to be done before they do us in.

One, two, three — is there an arc of inevitability to it? Each successive chief having to go incrementally further than the last, not necessarily because he wanted to, but because he had to.

Lost in the warfare of the last month was an important consensus: the civilians said something needed to be done and the boys agreed — though, tellingly, the civilians resisted other actions in Punjab.

But the path to recognising that something has to be done about the anti-India lot has begun to be trodden.

It is the logic of utility, institutional self-preservation and the mechanism of jihad: if the groups exist, they occasionally have to go into action; and when they do, the outside world has a reaction.

Uri was perhaps the least significant and so the reaction the most telling. Pathankot was really the bigger deal, but it came a week after Modi’s Christmas Day Lahore surprise.

He couldn’t react as angrily because he had just pushed open the door to normalisation. So India swallowed its rage and the world kept quiet.

When Uri happened, there was no such luck. India went into a rage and the world sympathised, even before the facts were known.

On India, we don’t have the advantage we have with the Afghan-centric lot. There we can always nudge them across the border — go home to where you belong, we can tell them when the time comes.

With the anti-India lot, this is home. They’re from here and this is where the fallout will be suffered.

And so this is where they’ll have to be dealt with.

The past offers some clues about what the future could look like. With Al Qaeda there was an opening wallop followed by sustained action.

The wallop came because 9/11 was momentous. It is how history will be measured, time before 9/11 and time after.

The sustained, years-long pursuit of Al Qaeda, in Fata and the cities, came because America insisted and America had the resources to make sure we listened.

But then came the Osama anomaly — what the hell was he doing here for those long years in plain sight?

The lesson: we’re like the kid who hates homework. We’ll make a show of it in the beginning and then find reason to go slow or switch off.

Phase three, the push against the anti-India lot, will be a root canal — when we get around to it, we sure won’t like it and will find plenty of reason not to until it threatens to kill us.

From the push against the anti-Pakistan lot, a different lesson: the need to create a national narrative first, the fabled public consensus that the boys demand as the starting point.

The boys have already hinted at it in private: telling the civilians to get a parliamentary resolution; arguing that public opinion needs to be kept onside; cautioning against moving too fast and under a perception of Indian pressure.

It can seem a ruse and a delaying mechanism, but the experience of getting to the point of saying no more on the anti-Pakistan lot is mirroring the talking points on the anti-India lot — the boys won’t do it until they’re sure they have the public onside.

But let’s not kid ourselves — the anti-India lot are fundamentally a different challenge.

It’s not like that they’re hard to find — their power is derived from the ability to thrive in plain sight. When we do decide to go after them, the core networks can be shut down relatively quickly.

The challenge, then, is something else: separating them from the anti-India narrative.

We’ll have to find a way to shut down the anti-India lot without tampering with the story of India being Enemy No 1.

Because, as has become evident, India being Enemy No 1 is an unalterable truth, an inalienable position that the boys will never give up.

The logic of utility, institutional self-preservation and the mechanism of jihad means the boys can and will turn on the anti-India lot. What the boys will never do is give up on India being the enemy.

So how to do it? And can it happen as soon as the next chief?

It won’t happen when India is demanding furiously — this much we can see. And it won’t happen when the civilians try to make themselves look good.

But it can if — if — someone can figure out how to get the boys to do it without making it look like it was someone else’s idea and without the boys looking bad.

One, two, three — at least the logic is in place.

The writer is a member of staff.

cyril.a@gmail.com

Twitter: @cyalm

Published in Dawn, November 6th, 2016

http://www.dawn.com/news/1294503/one-two-three

A startling revelation, Gul Bukhari, 06 November 2016

A startling revelation, Gul Bukhari, 06 November 2016

Around the October 26, a retired lieutenant general of the Pakistan Army made some startling revelations on prime time television, when commenting on the massacre of over 61 boys in a police training academy in Quetta. Both IS and later Lashkar-e-Jhangvi Al-Alami had claimed the attack. The Inspector General Frontier Corp (IGFC) Balochistan also identified the LeJ Al-alami as the attackers. This faction of the LeJ has publicly declared allegiance to IS, and IS released pictures of three attackers, one of whom bore a striking resemblance to the face of one of the attackers shot to death (the other two had blown themselves up beyond recognition). So the general correctly stated that both claims were correct as these groups have the same aims and work in collaboration where necessary.

But the chilling revelations came after this statement, and most amazingly did not create any waves, with the revelations taking many days to be reported in print media. In the media’s defence (sic), it was busy with its darling Imran Khan and his umpteenth non putsch, Sheikh Rasheed’s cigar atop a DSNG and other frivolous matters.

This is what the good general said: expressing his frustration and anger with the government, he claimed ‘the army has been telling the government for the last two years that we know that Hafiz Saeed or Masood Azhar have not been directing terror attacks inside India, but because of them there is a perception developing in the outside world that Pakistan is perpetrating terror attacks in India; for God’s sakes take action against them. Then they told the government that if you don’t want to do this, give us the legal cover and we will get them. That too the government didn’t do. Then we said okay, let the Rangers be deployed here (Punjab and interior Sindh), we will get some authority through the Rangers. But that also the government didn’t do. In the first week of April this year, the DG ISI gave the government two plans. The first was to mainstream Jamat-ud-Dawa (JuD), and others like them, into mainstream politics over the next one and a half years, clearly outlining the steps for the mainstreaming. The second plan was to segregate and deradicalise the violent groups and induct them into the Rangers and FC, such that they have an alternative livelihood and stop their violent extremism. The government handed this plan (violent groups) to NACTA and it is as a result in cold storage. The other plan (to bring JuD and the like into mainstream politics) is with the Prime Minister and he is sitting on it. And then they gave this news to DAWN which corroborates the American and Indian narrative (referring to the leak of the national security meeting held between the civil and military top brass reported on October 6).’

It is very hard to know where to begin to deconstruct all this. The entire patriotic industry has reacted very strangely since the story in DAWN was leaked, calling the reporter, the newsgroup, and those who found the story or its harbingers credible, traitors. In the meantime, between the October 6 story and now, a conference was held in London, hosted jointly by former Ambassador Hussain Haqqani and Dr Mohammed Taqi, to which they invited like-minded Pakistani people to ponder as to how Pakistan could chart out a progressive, democratic, egalitarian path away from the military’s toxic meddling in policy that has taken the country decades backwards to a precipice on which we hang now. All prominent attendees (including the organisers) were attacked by this industry for their treasonous statements. Dr Ayesha Siddiqa came under a particularly vicious attack. And all for what? For airing what they thought was wrong and how it could be set right.

Now. Back to Gen Shuaib’s revelations: No one has attacked him or the larger security establishment for being treasonous for plotting to endanger the armed forces with a high risk of infiltration by violent extremists. As it is, the Pakistan Army hunts and strings the Hizb-u-Tehreer wherever it finds them for trying to radicalise the ranks and officers, and instigating a rebellion against the top cadres to take over and impose Sharia. Given this, and given the famous attack and siege of the GHQ in 2009 being an insider job, given the PNS Mehran base attack in 2011 being an inside job, given both attempts on General Pervaiz Musharraf’s life being inside jobs, how can the DG ISI’s alleged proposals to government be considered anything other than mad? Stark raving mad?

If what the general has said is based on reality, I beg to ask, is there any scientific body of evidence on de-radicalisation, based on which militants and extremists are being proposed to be inducted into the forces that are supposed to protect our lives and property? Is there a single successful experiment the geniuses at the helm can cite? Or do they just get ideas, construct theories around these ideas, and expect the government to act on these just because they think these ideas would work?

Link the ideas with regards to East Pakistan, Kargil, Balochistan, FATA and Gilgit Baltistan. And FATA reminds of yesterday’s news report. The military dynamited a shopping plaza in South Waziristan in revenge for a major killed in a bomb blast nearby, under the cover of the Federal Crimes Regulations (FCR), that allows punishment under ‘collective responsibility’ under individual acts. It’s another matter that the plaza belonged to agent named Mirzalam, ‘a staunch pro-Pakistan Malik who was killed by the Taliban in 2004’.

Thank God we have a political government. No matter how weak. At least it sits on demented plans, like it sits on most other things. But I would advise the Prime Minister to put these plans to the parliament, because this is where such major policies must be decided on. Let the parliament decide on the wisdom, efficacy, deficiency or risks of major policies. But in the meantime, let’s stop the one sided traitor traitor games. They are passé. No one believes them anymore. Because no one is a traitor.

 Gul Bukhari

The writer is a human rights worker and freelance columnist. She can be contacted at gulnbukhari@gmail.com. Follow her on Twitter 

http://nation.com.pk/columns/06-Nov-2016/a-startling-revelation

What they never tell us about Ayub Khans regime, MURTAZA HAIDER

What they never tell us about Ayub Khans regime

MURTAZA HAIDER 

Pakistanis are a forgiving lot. They are even more forgiving of the dead. Civil and military dictators, fascists, hate-spewing clerics, and vigilantes end up with disciples, and at times, even with a shrine.

Military dictators are slightly more fortunate. An army of repute defenders, in uniform and civvies, continues singing the praise of the golden era when the ‘General Sahib’ once ruled.

They reminisce about the days when honey and milk flowed in ravines and open drains, and when the economic growth rivalled that of South Korea or some other Asian tiger or cat.

October 27 marked the 58th anniversary of the Martial Law imposed by General Ayub Khan.

Given that we have the advantage of hindsight, we can revisit the 'golden days' to test the veracity of the claims of bounty and harmony that are usually retailed, yet seldom verified.

Political leaders of all stripes and tenor must envy the good repute General Ayub Khan continues to enjoy almost 50 years after he reluctantly relinquished power.

The popular discourse about the Ayub era (1958 - 1969) is that of economic growth, prosperity, and the growing stature of Pakistan on the world stage.

However, the economic realities of the time are much less glamorous, if not dismal.

An objective review of General Ayub Khan’s policies and actions suggests that his primary motive was to sustain and prolong his rule as his regime sowed the seed, and generously watered the plant, for Bangladesh's separation that came years later.

He empowered the religious fundamentalists as he sought their support against Fatima Jinnah.

The economic growth, which many cite as his singular achievement, promoted the income inequalities resulting in the rise of the 20 influential families who controlled the nation's resources and amassed ill-gotten wealth, leaving the rest poor, hungry, and resentful.

Also read: Exit stage left: the movement against Ayub Khan

A Chief Martial Law Administrator is born

General Ayub's dramatic ascent to power in 1958 came after a decade of political turmoil.

From 1947 to 1958, Pakistan was governed by four heads of state and seven prime ministers.

The political jostling for power incapacitated the then president, General Iskander Mirza, who suspended the parliament and appointed a new cabinet with General Ayub Khan as the new prime minister.

However, within days, Ayub Khan turned the tables on General Mirza forcing him into a pensioned exile in London.

General Ayub Khan declared himself the president of Pakistan on October 27 while he simultaneously held the office of the Chief Martial Law Administrator. In the General's words:

"Major General Iskander Mirza, lately President of Pakistan, has relinquished his office of President and has handed over all powers to me. Therefore, I have this night assumed the office of President and have taken upon myself the exercise of the said powers and all other powers appertaining thereto."

Too illiterate to vote, but literate enough to create a homeland

From the time he assumed control, General Ayub resented the public and the democratic process.

For him, the public was too illiterate and poor to be trusted with adult franchise.

So he created an electorate ("basic democracy") of a few thousand of whom 95% elected the General as their leader.

That the same illiterate and poor people of Pakistan were wise enough to have voted earlier with their hearts, minds, and feet to create a new country that elevated the same General to the office of the army chief was not sufficient for them to have earned the General's trust for adult franchise.

General Ayub Khan held the politicians squarely responsible for the "chaotic internal situation" and accused them of being willing to barter the country "for personal gains".

He was keen to imprison leading politicians in East and West Pakistan.

The military dictators that came after him have held a similar contempt for politicians.

The economics of inequality

Shahid Javed Burki, a former World Bank economist, rightly identified the fundamental disconnect between the public and the Ayub Junta that celebrated 10-years of being in power by highlighting GDP growth and other inflated macroeconomic indicators.

The general public, however, cared less of the aggregate statistics as they struggled without much success against price inflation and spatial income disparities.

Burki points out that the so-called economic growth was rooted in income inequality, which worsened over time between regions and among people with the growth in the macroeconomy.

The result was evident: half of the industrial wealth accrued to Chinioties in Punjab and the immigrant Memons, Bohras, and Khojas.

At the same time, General Ayub opened the door to foreign experts who were ignorant of, and alien to, the political economy of Pakistan.

Yet they came armed with policies that might have worked elsewhere but were ill-suited for Pakistan's challenges.

General Ayub's economic prowess need not be discounted entirely. His penchant for central planning is evident in the second five-year plan.

The inflow of foreign capital, at twice the rate of that of India, sparked growth in industries that supported consumer goods.

One must also review what drove the growth and what industrial sectors blossomed as a result.

A close look at what transpired reveals that there was nothing organic about the growth.

It was primarily driven by foreign aid, the same way General Musharraf's rule was buttressed by American aid after 9/11.

By December 1961, foreign aid was more than twice the size of foreign loans. With the second five-year plan in 1964, foreign aid was responsible for 40% of the total investment.

And that's not all. Foreign aid covered 66% of the cost of imports. One must give credit where it's due, and it's mainly foreign aid.

Read next: Religious orthodoxy during Ayub regime

Despite the foreign investment as aid and credit, and the aggressive public works programme pursued by the regime to generate new jobs, unemployment persisted, and even worsened during the second five year plan from 5.5 million man-years in 1960-1 to 5.8 million man-years in 1964-5 in East Pakistan.

The regime allocated twice as much for atomic energy than it did for technical training.

What about the rapid industrialisation undertook by the Ayub regime using foreign aid? As soon as the industries started generating revenue, the regime disposed of them to private investors.

During 1964-65, the loans and advances by the government to the private sector were twice the size of the direct investments by the industry.

However, profit-making units that should have been set up by the industry in the first place should have not been handed over to the industrialists as an unearned reward.

Those who defend General Ayub Khan’s reign also hold false memories of peace and harmony. Do such claims withstand empirical scrutiny?

Raunaq Jahangir, quoted by Burki, demonstrated that violence, especially in Bangladesh (East Pakistan), increased tremendously during the Ayub era.

If there was peace and tranquility in the sixties, why did the unrest in 1968-69 reach such a feverish pitch?

It was not the economic growth, but the increasing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few that irked the have-nots and fuelled violence.

A critical report by none other than Dr Mehboobul Haq, the then Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, revealed that a coterie of just 20 families controlled two-thirds of the industry and three-fourth of the banking.

Pakistan's poet laureate, Habib Jalib, could not ignore the injustice. His poetry galvanised the public as he recited poems at gatherings where tens-of-thousands heard him denounce the 20 nouveau riche, who became even richer at the cost of keeping millions poor. Jalib wrote:

Biis gharanay hein abaad / Or karorron hein nashaad / Sadar Ayub Zindabad.

Related: Land reforms in Pakistan

General Ayub’s global fan base

There was no shortage of the high-profile admirers. From de Gaulle of France to President Johnson of the United States, Western leaders were singing praise for the economic growth in Pakistan.

Even Robert McNamara, the then World Bank president, proclaimed that Pakistan under General Ayub was “one of the greatest successes of development in the world”.

However, experts were quick to point out that de Gaulle, Johnson, McNamara and others focused solely on growth and ignored the distribution of wealth resulting in income inequalities that sowed the seeds of discontent, violence, and ultimately caused the splitting of East and West Pakistan.

The Bangladesh debacle

An oft-cited criticism of the former Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (1971 - 77) is that he engineered Bangladesh's succession to avoid sharing with, or worse losing power to, the demographically dominant East Pakistan.

However, it was General Ayub's years of preferred treatment of West Pakistan that irked East Pakistanis, who couldn't ignore the sustained rebukes when General Ayub placed three of the largest legacy projects, i.e., the construction of the new capital (Islamabad) and the two large hydel projects (Mangla and Tarbela) in West Pakistan.

Furthermore, General Ayub never kept a confidante from East Pakistan as all the King’s men belonged to West Pakistan.

The government of best intentions and worst implementation

Land reforms were one of the cornerstones of General Ayub's socio-political reengineering that restricted the maximum size of land holdings to encourage a more equitable distribution of land and resources among the landless peasantry.

The land reforms, however, achieved little in limiting the size of land holdings and limiting the political clout of the landed gentry. Instead, power and wealth concentrated further in the hands of the notorious 20 families.

The Ayub regime decided to limit land holdings to 500 acres of cultivated land, 1,000 acres of dry land, and 150 acres of orchards. Over 6,000 landowners exceeded the newly defined ceilings, owning 7.5 million acres of land.

The landowners though outsmarted the regime by transferring the land in advance to relatives so that ownership remained with the landed gentry. Thus, not much land was transferred to landless peasants.

Ayub Khan and Islam

Unlike General Ziaul Haq (1977-1988), who spent 11 years of his dictatorial rule to revert Pakistan back to a 7th-century medieval utopia, General Ayub was more of a modernist who was wary of the attempts to convert Pakistan into a desert kingdom of a bygone era.

While addressing a seminary he articulated his views:

"This I consider a great disservice to Islam, that such a noble religion should be represented as inimical to progress … In fact, it is great injustice to both life and religion to impose on twentieth century man the condition that he must go back several centuries in order to prove his bonafides as a true Muslim."

General Ayub's most significant and long lasting contribution is the promulgation of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance in 1961 that empowered women, especially in the matters of marriage and divorce.

Though the commission that drafted the recommendations was constituted in 1954, the Ayub regime took steps to implement the laws empowering women.

Before the family laws were enacted, neither marriages or divorces were required to be registered with the state.

This created severe hardships for divorced women, some of whom eventually remarried.

Their former husbands could, and some even did out of malice, accuse them of adultery since the women lacked proof of divorce from the first husband.

The new laws also required men who desired a second wife to seek formal consent from the first wife.

In summary, the acts and ordinances introduced by the Ayub regime discouraged polygyny, “protected the rights of wives and granted the rights of inheritance to grandchildren.”

On the same topic: A secular man?

Despite his belief and the desire to modernise the society, General Ayub was quick to give into religious orthodoxy as long as the policy about-turns prolonged his control over power.

Sarfraz Husain Ansari documented the policy flip-flops as the General reinstated the restrictive clauses of the Objective Resolution in 1963, which had been expunged from the Constitution earlier.

Furthermore, while the 1962 Constitution used “Pakistan” as the official name, the General yielded to the religious forces and changed the country's name to “Islamic Republic of Pakistan” in December 1963.

Finally, the Advisory Council of Islamic Ideology, which does not miss an opportunity to embarrass Pakistanis by its archaic, and frequently misogynist, interpretations of Islam, is also a gift from General Ayub that keeps on giving.

Ab raaj karey gi khalq-i-khuda

Regardless of how efficient a military regime becomes, in the end, the protagonist has to surrender to the political process in the theatre of governance.

General Ayub was no exception.

Despite his misgivings about politicians and the political process, he joined a political party, the Conventional Muslim League, a version of which has always been available to Pakistan's military rulers as they struggle to transition out of the uniform.

General Ayub knew that joining the political party was no win for him. He explained the reason he acceded to a party was because he had “failed to play this game in accordance with my rules and so I have to play in accordance with their rules — and the rules demand that I belong to somebody, otherwise who is going to belong to me. So it is simple. It is an admission of defeat on my part anyway.”

One wonders if Generals Zia and Musharraf, who followed in General Ayub's footsteps, ever knew or understood his words.

At the end of the day, the right to rule belongs to the people, and it reverts to them regardless, for eternal victory belongs to them, and not to civilian or military dictators.

If it were not for his health issues, would General Ayub still consider abdicating voluntarily? In January 1968, he caught a viral infection followed by pneumonia that developed into a pulmonary embolism.

By the fall of 1968, his health deteriorated even more.

At the same time, the opposition by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto gained strength. On February 21, 1969, General Ayub threw in the towel declaring he would not seek re-election in 1970. By March, General Yahya Khan took control as the Chief Martial Law Administrator.

On the same theme: Objectives Resolution: the root of religious orthodoxy

The repeated failed experiments of military rule in Pakistan make it abundantly clear that unlike other developing countries in the Middle East and in Southeast Asia where military dictators have enjoyed tremendous longevity, Pakistanis love independence and will not tolerate for long attempts to curb their political freedoms.

At the very onset of General Ayub's Martial Law, Justice M. R. Kiyani, the then Chief Justice of the West Pakistan High Court, articulated the very aspirations of freedom and independence of the people as he addressed the Bar Association in Karachi:

"There are quite a few thousand men who'd rather have the freedom of speech than a new pair of clothes and it is these who form a nation, not the office hunters, the license hunters, even the tillers of soil and drawers of water."

Just two days later, the Chief Justice was forced to tender an apology for offending army officers.

Pakistan, despite its struggles with rule of law, violence, and crumbling infrastructure, is stronger today because no one can dare force a Chief Justice to apologise for upholding the Constitution and the principles of democracy.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1293604/what-they-never-tell-us-about-ayub-khans-regime