Mashriq Lahore Editorial: Imran Khan’s revolutionary program?

لاہور میں پاکستان تحریک انصاف کا جلسہ اس جماعت کی گزشتہ پندرہ برس کی کارکردگی کے تناظر میں کامیاب رہا۔ 1996ء میں قائم ہونے والی تحریک انصاف نے اب تک منعقد ہونے والے انتخابات میں صرف ایک نشست پر کامیابی حاصل کی اور یہ نشست عمران خان نے 2002ئ کے عام انتخابات میں میانوالی سے حاصل کی تھی۔ اس زمانے میں فوجی آمریت نے مسلم لیگ نوازٞ اور پاکستان پیپلز پارٹی پر عرصۂ حیات تنگ کر رکھا تھا۔ پارلیمانی قوت کے تناسب سے عمران خان اور ان کی سیاسی جماعت کو ذرائع ابلاغ بالخصوص نجی ٹیلی ویږن چینلز پر جس قدر پذیرائی ملی، پاکستان میں اس کی کوئی مثال نہیں ملتی۔ اس کے باوجود تحریک انصاف کے بارے میں کبھی یہ تاثر قائم نہیں ہوا کہ یہ جماعت بڑے پیمانے پر انتخابی کامیابی حاصل کرسکتی ہے۔ سیاسی تجزیہ کاروں نے اس کے اسباب میں عمران خان کے طرز قیادت کے علاوہ ان کی جماعت کے سیاسی موقف کی مبینہ کمزوریوں کو بھی شمار کیا ہے۔ بایں ہمہ حالیہ مہینوں میں یہ تاثر عام ہوا ہے کہ وفاق اور صوبوں میں حکومتوں کی بدانتظامی اور بڑھتے ہوئے عوامی مسائل کے تناظر میں مقبول سیاسی قیادت سے عوامی بیگانگی کے باعث عمران خان کی عوامی پذیرائی میں اضافہ ہوا ہے۔ مرکزی پنجاب کے کچھ حصوں میں عوامی حمایت کے مظاہروں کے بعد تحریک انصاف نے پاکستان کے سیاسی مرکز لاہور میں جلسے کا اعلان کیا تو اس سے سیاسی حلقوں میں کافی ہلچل پیدا ہوئی۔ اس جلسے سے صرف دو روز پہلے ریلی منعقد کرکے پنجاب کی حکمران جماعت مسلم لیگ نوازٞ نے گویا تحریک انصاف کے جلسے کی اہمیت بڑھا دی۔ مسلم لیگ نوازٞ کی ریلی کے بغیر تحریک انصاف کا جلسہ سیاسی خلا میں ایک ایسی صدا قرار پاتا جس کی کوئی بازگشت نہیں ہوتی۔ یہ امر واضح ہے کہ تحریک انصاف نے اس جلسے کے ذریعے اپنی انتظامی صلاحیت اور عوامی حمایت کا اچھا مظاہرہ کیا ہے۔ تاہم جلسے کے کلیدی مقرر اور جماعت کے سربراہ عمران خان کی تقریر میں کوئی ایسا نکتہ نہیں تھا جسے ان کے موعودہ انقلاب سے تعبیر کیا جاسکے۔ ان کا سیاسی موقف اپنے استقلال اور داخلی تضادات کے ساتھ عوام پر اچھی طرح واضح ہے اور ان کی تقریر اسی موقف کا اعادہ تھی۔

عمران خان صاحب محکمہ مال کا ریکارڈ کمپیوٹر پر لا کر پٹواری کا منصب ختم کرنا چاہتے ہیں۔ اس میں کوئی شک نہیں کہ پٹواری ہماری معاشرتی روایت میں بدعنوانی اور رشوت کا استعارہ ہے۔ تاہم بدعنوانی پٹواری کی ذات پر موقوف نہیں بلکہ اجتماعی رویوں سے جنم لیتی ہے اور کمپیوٹر اجتماعی رویوں یا نااہلی کا انسداد نہیں کرسکتا۔ اگر ایسا ہوتا تو امسال پنجاب کے تعلیمی بورڈز کو اپنے نتائج منسوخ نہ کرنا پڑتے۔ عمران خان صاحب نے تھانہ کلچر میں تبدیلی کا نسخہ منتخب تھانیدار یا شیرف کی صورت میں دریافت کیا ہے۔ یہ امر قابل اطمینان ہے کہ اگرچہ عمران خان کو منتخب صدر، منتخب وزرائے اعلیٰ، اور منتخب ارکان اسمبلی کی دیانتداری پر اعتماد نہیں تاہم وہ منتخب تھانیدار کی دیانتداری پر مکمل اعتماد رکھتے ہیں اور سمجھتے ہیں کہ پولیس کو سیاسی اثرات سے پاک کرنے کا طریقہ یہ ہے کہ تھانیدار کو علاقے کے لوگ منتخب کریں۔

عمران خان حکومتی عہدیداروں سے ان کے اثاثے معلوم کرنا چاہتے ہیں اور آئندہ چند ماہ میں یہ اثاثے ظاہر نہ ہونے کی صورت میں سول نافرمانی کا ارادہ رکھتے ہیں۔ قابل ذکر بات یہ ہے کہ عمران خان کو صرف منتخب سرکاری عہدیداروں کے اثاثوں میں دلچسپی ہے۔ سوال یہ ہے کہ ہر انتخابی امیدوار کو اپنے اثاثوں کا اعلان کرنا ہوتا ہے۔ منتخب نمائندے الیکشن کمیشن کو اپنے منقولہ اور غیر منقولہ اثاثوں کی تفصیل بیان کرنے کے پابند ہیں۔ ان گوشواروں میں کسی بددیانتی کی صورت میں انتخابی عذر داری دائر کی جاسکتی ہے۔ ایسی صورت میں عمران خان کی سول نافرمانی غالباً مربوط سیاسی اور معاشی پروگرام نہ ہونے کی عکاسی کرتی ہے۔ اس اہم خطاب میں عمران خان نے جمہوری نظام سے وابستگی کے بارے میں ایک لفظ نہیں کہا۔ 1600 ارب سے لے کر 1800 ارب روپے کے کل سالانہ محصولاتی حجم میں بیرونی قرضوں کی واپسی، دفاع اور انتظامی اخراجات نکال کر جو باقی بچتا ہے عمران خان اس کا حساب چاہتے ہیں۔ یہ ان کا شہری اور جمہوری حق ہے لیکن ان اثاثوں کا کل حجم ملک کی مجموعی معیشت میں کیا تبدیلی لاسکتا ہے۔ کیا عمران خان نعروں کی مدد سے بجٹ کے خسارے، بیرونی سرمایہ کاری کے فقدان اور کمزور صنعتی شعبے اور تجارتی خسارے جیسے معاشی مسائل حل کرنا چاہتے ہیں۔ 1999ئ سے لے کر 2002ئ کے انتخابات تک عمران خان کو جنرل پرویز مشرف کا قرب سلطانی حاصل تھا اور آمر کا احتسابی بیورو سرگرم تھا۔ عمران خان نے معیشت کو ترقی دینے کا یہ نسخہ تب کیوں استعمال نہیں کیا۔ پاکستان میں کوئی ایسا قانون موجود نہیں جس کی مدد سے شہریوں کو اپنے جائز اثاثے ملک سے باہر لے جانے سے روکا جا سکے۔ درحقیقت کھلی منڈی کی معیشت سرمائے کے آزادانہ انتقال کا دوسرا نام ہے۔

دہشت گردی کے مسئلے پر عمران خان کے خیالات میں کوئی ندرت نہیں۔ وہ عسکریت پسندوں، پاکستان کی سرزمین پر قبضہ کرنے والوں، ہزاروں پاکستانیوں کو شہید کرنے والے اور لاکھوں پاکستانی شہریوں کو یرغمالی بنانے والوں کے خلاف فوجی کارروائی کے مخالف ہیں۔ عمران خان کے حامی انہیں ملک کا وزیراعظم دیکھنا چاہتے ہیں۔ ملک کے وزیراعظم کو آئین اور ملک کی سلامتی کے تحفظ کا حلف اٹھانا پڑتا ہے۔ یہ سمجھنا مشکل ہے کہ عمران خان عسکریت پسندوں کے خلاف کارروائی نہ کرنے اور بطور وزیراعظم اپنے حلف میں کس طرح مطابقت پیدا کریں گے۔ غالباً اس کا جواب یہی ہے کہ وزیراعظم کے منصب پر پہنچنے کے لیے انتخابات میں کامیابی ضروری ہے۔ انتخابی عمل انقلاب کا نہیں، آئین کے تسلسل کا تقاضا کرتا ہے۔ شاید اسی لیے عمران خان چند ماہ بعد سول نافرمانی شروع کرنے کا ارادہ رکھتے ہیں جب آئندہ انتخابات میں ایک سال سے کم مدت باقی رہ جائے گی۔ جس طرح عمران خان نے قومی معیشت کے کلیاتی خد و خال کو نظر انداز کرکے ایک جزو پر توجہ مرکوز کررکھی ہے اسی طرح وہ پاکستان کے قومی سیاسی منظر میں صرف پنجاب کے ایک خاص حصے کو ہدف بنائے ہوئے ہیں۔ پاکستان کی تاریخ میں بہت سے مسیحا آئے اور پھر اپنے صدری نسخوں سمیت تاریخ کے اوراق میں گم ہوگئے۔ اگر عمران خان اس روایت کو تبدیل کرنا چاہتے ہیں تو انہیں اپنے سیاسی موقف پر سنجیدگی سے غور و فکر کرنا چاہیے۔

بشکریہ: مشرق لاہور

Advertisements

Paint it Black!!! Dr Adib Rizvi road

On July 23, 2010, President Asif Ali Zardari while signing “gift of life” certificate ceremony announced that his government would nominate prominent medical professional, philanthropist and founder of Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation (SIUT) Dr Adibul Hassan Rizvi for Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his services in the field of organ transplant.

Dr Abdus Salam defaced grave

Our memories of First Pakistani Nobel laureate, Dr Abdus Salam are not gratifying though, the pioneer of our much lionized Nuclear program faced discrimination at home.

“He was never honoured in his own country because, as an Ahmadi, he became a non-Muslim under the Second Amendment of the 1973 Constitution. He died on Nov 21, 1996, in Oxford and, in accordance with his last wish, was buried in Pakistan. There was no official mourning, no recognition of the laurels he had won for his country and no representative of the government attended his funeral. The inscription on his tombstone initially read: “The first Muslim Nobel Laureate” but the word “Muslim” was effaced by the authorities, turning the inscription into the nonsensical “First Nobel Laureate.” (Source)

The secernment has been institutionalised by the state. On June 26, 2011, a tender notice was published in Urdu and English newspapers by Karachi Nuclear Power Complex. The tender notice was about scrap items offered for auction but KNPC administration didn’t hesitate to remind us of our blessed Nuclear assets. And added following ‘Note’ at the end,

“For the visit of site Plant, only Muslims with NADRA original CNIC will be allowed after confirming at Security Gate”

KNPC Tender notice

Ironically it is the same plant, which was founded due to tireless efforts of Dr Abdus Salam and Premier Bhutto was accompanied by Dr Salam and Munir A Khan at the inauguration ceremony. After two years, Friend of Dr Salam had to sign a constitutional amendment declaring him a Non-Muslim.

Maulana Noorani, who was on the forefront of Anti-Ahmadiyya campaign, which resulted in 2nd constitutional amendment, a decade later was asked about the Anti-Shia campaign revived by Deobandi firebrand clerics from Punjab, he replied sarcastically, “Hamein pata hei, Kaaley Jhandey Ke Baad Harey Jhandey Ki Baari Hei” (We know, after the black flag, they will turned against the green one).

Unfortunately, the campaign turned violent as Jihadi delirium in the last two decades has turned the hate mongers into killing machines. Jihadi recruitment and training centers have delegated powers and expertise to the activists of sectarian outfits, who demonstrates it by burning Christians alive in Gojra, killing Ahmedis at their places of worships in Lahore, killing Shia doctors, professionals, clerics and Hazaras in Queta.

The person President Zardari has wished to propose for prestigious Nobel peace prize is also from Shia community and has survived many assassinations attempt. After one and a half year of President Zardari’s announcement, One can hardly find any details, whether Govt of Pakistan has proposed his name or not, and like others, I almost forgot the announcement, but an email by a friend from my home city Karachi has impelled me to recall it.

The email includes some images captured via mobile, showing name plates of a road named after Dr Adib Rizvi, but it has odiously been showered(sprayed) with black paint in such a way that it hardly can be read.

The boards are located at Ghani Chowrangi, on the road going toward scrap market from SITE Area . The same road has Government college of Technology SITE, a stronghold of IJT, student wing of  violent Islamist party and terrorists sympathiser Jamat Islami.

The chowrangi has IJT flags all over, wall chalking and political slogans all around, as they have a habit of occupying every available space with it.

But the black spray on Dr Adibul Hasan Rizvi’s name tells another story. As there are two boards with names on both sides. They have consumed the paint over making the name unreadable, especially the surname, ‘Rizvi’ commonly associated with Shia Muslims.

Karachi and Lahore are witnessing violence against Shia Muslims intensified in the Last two decades. Many intellectuals and professionals have been killed for their crime of being part of Shia community and having surnames associated to Shia Muslims. The way it gone unnoticed or misrepresented is evident from the distorted arguments and misleading terminologies used for such incidents.

Dailytimes and columnist Dr Mohammad Taqi in his Op-ed yesterday referring to this tendency writes,

Many seasoned human rights campaigners have either remained mum or have issued subdued statements literally sanitising the premeditated mass murder underway in and around Quetta. Terms like ‘sectarian killings’, with connotations of a tit-for-tat warfare between equal groups for similar motives, have been deployed.(Source)

In previous term of PML-N, a senior Punjab Police official now CM Advisor was accused of his alleged links with Anti-Shia militias and in this term its Law minister is a known sympathiser of these outfits.

In Karachi, these elements are on a free run, as the complex political situation, and a broadly used term “Target Killings” provides a cover to their activities and is often misrepresented as I stated above.

Abbas Zaidi, Writer, Linguist and a dearest friend in his Op-ed about Supreme Court much celebrated verdict states,

The Taliban and the SSP appear only once each and in a context where Shias can only pull their hair in frustration and disbelief. About the Taliban, the verdict says: “Karachi’s ethnic wars have claimed some 1,000 lives this year, with more than 100 in the past week alone. By contrast the Taliban and other religious extremists kill tiny numbers in Karachi” (page 137).

One would like to ask: how tiny is a tiny number? The verdict has simply not mentioned hundreds of Shias killed in the past few years. What is the point of enumerating the number of people killed in just one year and blot out hundreds of people killed in the previous years? (Source)

President Zardari, while addressing the ceremony, I have mentioned earlier further said,

“The world had in the past converted noble Pakistanis into war machines and warriors. Although this chapter is closed now, Pakistan is still trying to adapt to the changed situation.”(Dawn)

The role of our own state and intelligence apparatus cannot be pushed aside in turning people into War machines, as well as their aiding and abetting of these Anti-Shia outfits for various ideological and political reasons.

In the last decade of our love and hate relations with Jihadis, I was using the famous Urdu saying of “Mey kambal ko Chodta hun, Laikin Kambal mujhe Nahi Chorhta”. But unfortunately there’s not even a wish to get rid of this mess. And every act of us, even our urge of giving peace a chance is negated by what we are practicing.

President Zardari said the world should look at the good in Pakistan and its people.

“Pakistan is proud of people like Dr Adib Rizvi, Abdus Sattar Edhi and Benazir Bhutto. Dr Adib Rizvi and Abdus Sattar Edhi could have made fortunes by pursuing some other profession in other countries.”

Dear President! Pakistan has their first and foremost responsibility to defend their people against hate mongers and Insane killers. And it failed miserably in this regard.

Diplomatic bargaining at the edge — I —Prof. Ijaz Khan

Prof. Ijaz Khan is an academic and active commentator at various discussion forums, mailing groups and social networks. He is associated with Peshawar University and is Chairman, Department of International Relations.  He annotates on US Af-Pak policy, Pakistan Afghan policy and its implications on the region and the people living in it. Here’s first part of his take on the current row of overheated bargaining between US and Pakistan and Pakistan wishlist in post US withdrawal scenario in Afghanistan.(ali arqam)

The conflict in the Af-Pak region has entered a new phase, which may be termed the pre-2014 phase. This phase is currently witnessing a serious row between the US and Pakistan, supposedly allies in the ‘war against terrorism’. All parties want to influence the outcome in 2014 so that the post-2014 situation best meets its perceived interests. To influence that outcome Pakistan and the US are pursuing policies that appear to be at odds. Both also consider the behaviour of the other to be vital for achievement of its goal. So they are using various means to influence each other’s behaviour. The current row between the two allies can be explained as an overheated diplomatic bargaining.

President Obama announced disengagement from active combat in Afghanistan by 2014, thus the withdrawal of US combat troops from Afghanistan. This was announced along with a plan to enable the US to do so after succeeding in Afghanistan and not losing the war there. The plan was based on the US’s increased action at different levels: one was an increased military action through increased military presence, the so-called ‘surge policy’, and two, raising of the Afghan Army and a viable governance system. The strategy also includes peeling away as much of the Taliban as possible through negotiations. The purpose is to strengthen the Afghan government in relation to the Taliban resistance. The US does not intend to abandon Afghanistan, as it does not want a repeat of the 1990s when Afghanistan became a safe haven for terrorists from all over the world, especially Al-Qaeda.

Given adjustments for language, style and rhetoric, Pakistan’s Afghan policy has continuously been guided by two considerations: security threat perceptions from India and the question of the Durand Line. It was hosting most of the mujahideen leaders of the 1980s since the early 1970s or becoming a front-line state in the 1980s against Soviet intervention in Afghanistan or the half-cooked ideas of ‘strategic depth’ in the 1990s leading to the rise of the Taliban. Pakistan appeared to have taken a U-turn after 9/11. However, that perception soon proved wrong by what Ahmad Rashid called a ‘double U-turn’. Pakistan has been playing the role of a broker between the US and the Taliban even before 9/11. After 9/11, Pakistan — while announcing support for the US — tried its best to salvage whatever was left of its Afghan policy that banked on a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Pakistan tried to bridge the gap between the Taliban and the US, with the aim of saving the Taliban from any military action against them. It continued its diplomatic relations with their government in Kabul to the very end. However, when the US attacked and dislodged the Taliban government, Pakistan adjusted its policy accordingly. Since then its policy has aimed to get a government in Kabul in which it will have a strong say and Indian influence will be minimum. For that end, Pakistan has been acting against the Taliban with a policy that will limit them but not eliminate them. Pakistan also wishes to see a complete withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan, however only after meeting Pakistan’s concerns. Pakistan now wants to limit Afghanistan’s military capability as well, so a recent Pakistan foreign policy elite study proposed limiting of the Afghan Army.

Pakistan’s relations with the Taliban have been quite complex. It is like you construct a canal to direct the flow of water over whose flow you do not have much control. You stop the Taliban from acting where you do not want them to and shut your eyes when they act where you want them to. Whether Pakistan controls some of them and to what extent is debatable, however, it finds their defeat unless Pakistan’s concerns are met as not desirable. Its actions or inaction against them must be understood in this background. It is this policy that angers and frustrates the US.

The US is also facing a dilemma. It is aware of Pakistan’s position and its role. It also knows how vital that role is for the current phase of the Afghan imbroglio. Admiral (retd) Mullen’s as well as other statements, including those from the White House itself, clearly establish that the US has not been able to make Pakistan act the way it wants to with a policy that can largely be described as that of carrots and the threat of use of sticks.

With 2014 approaching fast, the US’s choices are getting limited. The American leadership seems to be getting convinced that carrots are not convincing enough and neither are the threats. Pakistani policy makers know that the US will bend over backwards as much as possible to avoid materialising of the threats — to avoid the use of sticks. They bank on US calculations that it must not entangle itself in a country bigger than both Afghanistan and Iraq put together. This does not mean that Pakistan is a match for the US militarily. Even the Pakistani establishment knows that. This means the US would need much more troops afterwards and still much more resources. Pakistan cannot be just hit, destroyed and left for the extremists to take over. If the US ever decides to hit decisively against Pakistan then it has to commit for a much longer, bigger and direct commitment than it can be worth in terms of interests — security or economic, both immediate or strategic. This is what emboldens Pakistan and pushes it to bargain hard.

Read the 2nd part here..

Courtesy: Dailytimes