Since General Pervez Musharraf came to power in a bloodless coup nearly eight years ago, the public mood has wavered often between a desire for stability and a desire for constitutional governance. And just as often, Musharraf has wavered between political heavy-handedness and sporadic attempts at reform. The most recent head of the Pakistani judiciary, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, took the reform cues to heart over two year stint, issuing important rulings on privitasation, religious policing, and "disappearances" traced to the government itself. For Musharraf, the latter was a reform too far - he accused Chaudhry of misconduct and demanded his resignation on March 9th. Chaudhry refused and was placed under house arrest.

Though many following the scandal involving the dismissal of US attorneys may consider this rather uneventful, the legions of suit-and-tied lawyers taking to the streets - rocks in hand - proved otherwise (you were expecting madrassa students, perhaps?). The protests included a boycott of all court proceedings and demands for Musharraf's resignation. Reprisals included scores of injuries, attacks on legal institutions and the shuttering of TV stations. Judges resigned and thousands have been arrested. As with President George Bush in the US, Musharraf has claimed a sort of executive priviledge, citing the stability of the country for extraconstitutional measures.

Though he has gamely stated no intention to call a state of emergency or delay elections (and says he has no personal differences with Chaudaray), he appears in this case to have overplayed his hand. A leaked list of accusations was made public on March 19th and included such items as using a 3.0 litre Mercedes instead of a 1.7 litre-engined car and "asking for more perks than he was entitled to." An interview with Musharraf, where he blamed "low-level officials" was found by Dawn newspaper to be "not very convincing." Though a constitutional amendment states that he give up his military uniform this year, Musharraf has stated - cryptically - that he will only follow the constitution (which was changed the last time he was required to leave his post). It is the holding of his military post - shades of the disastrous military dictatorships of Pakistan's past - that have ordinary Pakistanis agitated.

Choudhary, in fact, was due to rule on the constitutionality of Musharraf's military post and his eligibility for the next general election. In the meantime, Pakistan's Supreme Court, where Chaudhry once reigned, is scheduled to hear the charges again on April 3rd. Chaudary has insisted he will not resign and the bar association and opposition parties (those linked to former Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif) plan to continue their protests. "The Government is trying to prolong the proceedings of the Chief Justice's case to weaken the lawyers struggle," said Sindh High Court Bar Association's President Abrar Hasan. "But, the government will not succeed in its designs and our struggle will continue."

Thanks for coverage, as well as insights and opinions. While it may or may not be the time for The Prez to move on, I sure hope the lawyers and their supporters have a viable alternative to back when the next "elections" arrive. Perhaps we shall see whether there is any truth or wisdom for Pakistan in the rumor that certain elements of Muslim politics are democratic, but that there will only be one election if certain of them happen to win power? Those elements have, it appears, made substantial gains among the "electorate" since the days of Bhutto and Sharif. Watching the Dems savage W is, after all, not the only game in town. Of peripheral interest, perhaps, but diverting, consider the roles of (radical)fundamentalist evangelism with related unitary political models in Pak and USA.

I think that the political gains in a democratic environment, should be built on the ethical benefits derived by that society. A proof or testimonial of good governance. We have to remember that governments can't just subjectively legislate good for their people. They must make concrete socio-economic contributions to their people. The system can be subverted, but not so easily in a democracy. That is what democracy affords people in my mind. An ability to prove themselves worthy to govern and handing the destiny of a people back to them. Don't politicize the value but rather its tangible results. This is the muslims worlds psychological leap of faith. Not trying to sound like a prick or anything.



I think that it is the big democratic muslim nations that are pivotal to advancement of Islam and the Ummah's interests i.e. Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia. These are the roots of our reform.



Musharraf must give up his designs. He has had a great run. but for him to cause good change, he can't go down the route of brilliant African leaders who become self encased in their ideals e.g. Mugabe and Idi Amin. Musharraf sits on a threshhold. To be remembered as the man who plunged Pakistan into darkness or brought its people out into the light. The man who allowed muslims the ability to civilly determine their future.

Just an oversight, or is there a reason Turkey was not included with Nigeria, Pak and Indonesia? Is there a nationalist component or category within the structure of Ummah? If so, do Muslims generally agree on this, or is that a point of contention among Muslim scholars? And, if so, what is the expectation for conflict resolution when, for example, democratic muslim nations ( Indonesia and Pakistan?) adopt different policies on religious pluralism within the state?

>>> ...is there a reason Turkey was not included with Nigeria, Pak and Indonesia?

Three random non-european, non-arab, formerly colonized democratically aligned countries? I can't say for sure.

>>> Is there a nationalist component or category within the structure of Ummah?

In my view and for practical reasons .. nations have always been autonomous in many ways. Within a globalised world, the effects on each other could still mean the Ummah is intact. If I'm having noodles from indonesia or wearing leather jackets from Pakistan.

>> what is the expectation for conflict resolution when, for example, democratic muslim nations ( Indonesia and Pakistan?) adopt different policies on religious pluralism within the state?

When nations have a mutual co-dependance, ideas will flourish accross boundaries and ideas? Thats a muslim phenomenon you know. Rumi was turkish, but his appeal and his ideas transfer .. maybe because they're inherently Islamic.

>> different policies on religious pluralism within the state?

There is a growing Islamic consciousness that carries pluralism as its ideal. The policies may differ based on the experiences and needs of the country in question .. but the ideals are still the same. Thats what I see when I see the Hajj being performed.

Ghulam,

Historically, Pakistan has not been democratic for the most part. It is under under rule of a military dictator. Why would you include it in this list? Its record for treating minorities or for that matter muslim brothers from its eastern wing (when Bangladesh was part of it) is dismal. Don't know how they are going to be pivotal to Islam or Ummah's advancements.

Seems legit to me to see Pak as a muslim nation in transition from pre-1947 tribalism to some class of constitutional state. History of minority treatment seems typical of a nation forming from disparate ethno/political parts (tribes and emigrants) into a state, while oscillation, since M. Jinnah, between military and civilian control of administration (vs. control of power, has been essentially military, in absence of any other institution of govt, other than the mosque) is also rather typical of post-colonial/industrializing statehood. From this point of view, emergence of lawyers as the current vanguard vs. military, and more or less distinct from the mosque, is perhaps a good sign.

Believe Ghulam was classing Pak, correctly, with other representative states where civil constitutionality is being tried on as basis for social contract. Why I suggest Turkey is also part of the grouping. This might be usefully contrasted to other contemporary or recent models, for example: ethno/ religiously determined constitutionality (catholic v. protestant Irish Republic? Bosnia? Iran?), or revolutionary one party "constitutionality" (USSR, China, Cuba, Third Reich).

Anyway, although the Pakistani situation may rapidly turn in unfortunate directions, I think one also can see, and applaud, signs of positive development and opportunity for constitutional progress and increased differentiation among institutional and political power groups beyond the soldiers and the mullahs.

>> Don't know how they are going to be pivotal to Islam or Ummah's advancements.

Mass sentiment. Multiple muslim communities with an intent for an Islamic way of life? The fact that the legislature and the judicial system are fighting in the streets for independence and representavity?

>> ..... and increased differentiation among institutional and political power groups beyond the soldiers and the mullahs.

Comparisons to western political models will undo the rest of the planet. Weren't American founding fathers a mixture of preacher, soldier, businessmen .. Muslims do NOT have an organised CHURCH.

For anyone interested in reading it, there is a good write-up about the day Bhutto was hanged on April 4th 1979, in the April 4th 2007 edition of Dawn (editorial).

http://www.dawn.com/2007/04/04/ed.htm#4

Written by his nephew, as a first-person account, it is a fascinating glimpse into what has driven Pakistan to this state of affairs.

This is the concluding piece on Bhutto:
http://www.dawn.com/2007/04/05/op.htm

There is a reference to the fact that Bhutto returned from Shimla with the territories lost to India 'in his pocket'. While Tariq Islam says this is the consummate diplomacy of Bhutto - which is true - he forgets to give any credit to India.

It was a controversial decision to return the territories that the Pakistan Army surrendered. As Tariq Islam says it is unheard of for a conquering country to return the lands it holds. In fact there is a famous anecdote about how Nasser told Indira Gandhi that the Arab countries lost all respect for India when they did not march in to Islamabad and on top of that they returned the conquered territory!

It may incense Pakistani readers but the underlying fact in all this is that by returning the territory, India staked the claim for a moral high ground that is at the heart of the support she gets in international circles in times of crisis. People believe them when Indians say their intentions are not aggressive because their actions(such as this) prove those intentions; Whereas Pakistan has lost that moral high ground and reinforces its image as a sullen bully by incidents like Kargil

This is why military dictators get unconditional support again and again in Pakistan. In their heart of hearts it seems Pakistanis thirst for one mighty blow to India! Until the Pakistani citizenship stops thinking of India, this will continue.

>> India staked the claim for a moral high ground that is at the heart of the support she gets in international circles in times of crisis.

Can you name one country in the last one hundred years (outside Chinas actual claims to Tibet) that has kept the countries it has supposedly conquered in war?

>> In their heart of hearts it seems Pakistanis thirst for one mighty blow to India!

Your mind thirsts for honesty. Would India have problem with Pakistani sentiment if Kashmir was legitimately handed over to west Pakistan?

Vasan, thanks for the 2 links you sent, although I didn't find your take on the 2nd link regrding Indo/Pak matters to be supported by T.I.'s column. But his recent and contemporary history and prognosis of the competition between theories of the theocratic religious vs. the democratic constitutional tendencies seems timely - this especially thoughtful : " It [this piece in Dawn] is only about the evolution of the theory of two sovereignties and its latest manifestation. This theory, in a sentence, is that every Pakistani Muslim has a right and a duty to bring his fellow-beings under a regime he thinks his belief prescribes even if this involves a defiance of the state-made (that is, man-made) laws and rules."

Is this latter sovereignty not the very one proposed and modelled by examples such as the Taliban, the AQ in Mesopotamia, and the Iranian ayatollocracy? Seems an accurate reflection of the faultline between secular and religious states and political elements, playing out in many regions, Muslim and otherwise. In some, the religious theory has the upper hand. In others, it's the sovereignty of "man-made" law dominant, if less than universally observed. In others, such as Pakistan seems to be, the matter is not settled.

Interesting to note that both the religious and the secular tyrannies of today's world generally find it expedient to have a book of laws to support themselves; many even go so far as to have some democratic forms within their tyranny.

This points to another dichotomy, running across and interacting with the religious/secular lines - that of states with too much government and those with too little. But that's a topic for other fora.

Ghulam,

I will address your question about which countries have kept the territories they conquered, in a moment. But first, please understand the spirit of my argument. When Pakistan "invades" India (as in Kargil and previous occasions) they lose the moral high ground. When India returns the conquered territories it gains moral high ground. Now there is nothing wrong in saying 'so did the Americans in WW2 or the Brits etc.' That is exactly the point - that gives them a certain legitimacy that the invading (and usually defeated soon after) nations lack.

It is the same thing with Nuclear proliferation. When India has managed to keep from selling nuclear bomb designs to all and sundry for over twenty years it shows responsibility. When Pakistan opens up a nuclear bazaar, it loses credibility.

As to who chose to keep the territory after a war in the last hundred years, here is a list of losers - Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Saddam's Iraq(Kuwait), Israel (Golan), A whole bunch of African Nations, Greeks and Cypriots (I forget who conquered whom but they are still fighting), Russians after WW2 (by installing puppets across the soviet union), Turkey and the Kurds (I am not very clear in that but some kind of tussle is on) and of course, China. Personally I think you should add the US and Britain to this list of losers for trying to control Iraq by military might which is exactly why they have no moral high ground.

As to handing over Kashmir, I am not sure what you mean by that. Kashmir was never a part of Pakistan to begin with. All it is is a religious majority of Muslims that has come about by the Hindus being driven out of the valley. I am amazed that Muslims don't know that and they are under the impression Kashmir was always a Muslim majority state. Just so your friends know, Kashmir has always been in the realm of Indian spiritualism and during the time of Sankaracharya (around 800AD), he established one of the important schools of Hindu philosophy there. Incidentally, Sankaracharya was born in Kerala ( which is a little distance away from Kashmir for him to just accidentally wander in to Kashmir)

Just as Muslims who have never visited Gujarat grieve for the hundreds killed in the riots there, Hindus who have never visited Kashmir feel angry about the killing of the Pandits and them being driven away from Kashmir.