The decision by the President of Pakistan to establish military rule and in the process fire the Chief Justice [see the NY Times report here] ought to be of concern to everyone, not least the US and Australia, who have paraded and held up Pakistan as an ally in the so-called "war on terror".
That things haven't been going well in Pakistan is clearly spelt out in this piece by Ayesha Ijaz Khan, a London-based lawyer and writer, in a piece on CounterPunch "Pakistan in a Daze" [published before the new decree of military rule]:
"More than ever before, Pakistan's security situation is cause for enormous concern. Innocent lives are lost everyday in bomb explosions and suicide attacks. The most recent explosion, on a bus in Sargodha, situated in the relatively calm plains of the Punjab, killed several Pakistan Air Force personnel.
The "war on terror," an unpopular war in Pakistan because it was viewed as "America's War," which pitted Pakistani against Pakistani and Muslim against Muslim, has now come home to roost. It is no longer contained in the tribal areas of Waziristan but spreading like wild fire to Karachi, Islamabad, Rawalpindi and Sargodha, thus confusing urban and rural inhabitants who previously took solace in the fact that they were geographically distanced from the tribal belt.
In bustling Mingora city and idyllic Swat, often compared to Switzerland in the beauty of its terrain, the tourism industry has come to a standstill and schools are closed. Many families are secretly fleeing for safety to Peshawar. Pakistanis are fearful, disturbed and shocked not only at the ferocity and alacrity with which the bombings are continuing, but also at the growing numbers, force and influence of the militants.
Unlike in Britain or America, where terrorism, at least in the immediate aftermath, propels a display of unity and rallying behind the government, in Pakistan it is not so. Instead, there are feelings of resentment and anger. Because the government has done so little for its people in terms of health care, education and infrastructure over the years, the lapse in security is also squarely placed on the government's shoulders. To some extent, it's an easy target. Not to mention, a target against which one can speak freely in Pakistan. Perhaps it is not so easy to condemn the militants who have instilled fear in the hearts and minds. Nevertheless, questions as to how the militants were able to stockpile arms in large quantities and organize themselves and penetrate into urban centres are valid concerns that must be addressed.
The government, for its part, is toying with the idea of imposing emergency measures. Not because of the ugly security situation, although it must undoubtedly be alarmed by it and will certainly use it as a rationale, but because of the judiciary's aggressive posturing towards the executive. The Supreme Court is currently considering "the dual office case," which is to examine whether President Musharraf, as a serving chief of the army, was qualified to contest the presidential election. The Constitution provides powerful ammunition to the petitioners challenging his dual office."
That things haven't been going well in Pakistan is clearly spelt out in this piece by Ayesha Ijaz Khan, a London-based lawyer and writer, in a piece on CounterPunch "Pakistan in a Daze" [published before the new decree of military rule]:
"More than ever before, Pakistan's security situation is cause for enormous concern. Innocent lives are lost everyday in bomb explosions and suicide attacks. The most recent explosion, on a bus in Sargodha, situated in the relatively calm plains of the Punjab, killed several Pakistan Air Force personnel.
The "war on terror," an unpopular war in Pakistan because it was viewed as "America's War," which pitted Pakistani against Pakistani and Muslim against Muslim, has now come home to roost. It is no longer contained in the tribal areas of Waziristan but spreading like wild fire to Karachi, Islamabad, Rawalpindi and Sargodha, thus confusing urban and rural inhabitants who previously took solace in the fact that they were geographically distanced from the tribal belt.
In bustling Mingora city and idyllic Swat, often compared to Switzerland in the beauty of its terrain, the tourism industry has come to a standstill and schools are closed. Many families are secretly fleeing for safety to Peshawar. Pakistanis are fearful, disturbed and shocked not only at the ferocity and alacrity with which the bombings are continuing, but also at the growing numbers, force and influence of the militants.
Unlike in Britain or America, where terrorism, at least in the immediate aftermath, propels a display of unity and rallying behind the government, in Pakistan it is not so. Instead, there are feelings of resentment and anger. Because the government has done so little for its people in terms of health care, education and infrastructure over the years, the lapse in security is also squarely placed on the government's shoulders. To some extent, it's an easy target. Not to mention, a target against which one can speak freely in Pakistan. Perhaps it is not so easy to condemn the militants who have instilled fear in the hearts and minds. Nevertheless, questions as to how the militants were able to stockpile arms in large quantities and organize themselves and penetrate into urban centres are valid concerns that must be addressed.
The government, for its part, is toying with the idea of imposing emergency measures. Not because of the ugly security situation, although it must undoubtedly be alarmed by it and will certainly use it as a rationale, but because of the judiciary's aggressive posturing towards the executive. The Supreme Court is currently considering "the dual office case," which is to examine whether President Musharraf, as a serving chief of the army, was qualified to contest the presidential election. The Constitution provides powerful ammunition to the petitioners challenging his dual office."
Comments