Musharraf’s Calumnies
By Rais Khan
Fremont, California
Putting together conscious and subconscious thoughts without any constraints and reflecting on events and individuals uninterruptedly, one is admittedly and freely communicating his/her mindset in its natural form. Under similar ideal conditions without any compulsions from any quarters and choosing time and space of his free volition, Gen.(R) Pervez Musharraf wrote his biography titled “ In the Line of Fire” which is merely a narrative of some events with no material for thinking mind except some intellectual afterthoughts in the last chapter on Reflections. Mr. Musharraf authored his book in the year 2006 when he was COAS of the Pakistan Army, a highly coveted and responsible position demanding strong moral values, discipline and perfection in behavioral attributes and etiquettes besides professional excellence.
In his book, Mr. Musharraf resorted to character assassination of two distinguished and popular political leaders of Pakistan with massive followings by passing caustic and derogatory remarks about their political philosophies and personalities. About Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto he expressed his opinion in Chapter 8, page 58: “Bhutto ruled not like a democrat but like a despotic dictator. He threw many of his opponents including editors, journalists and even cartoonists into prison. He was a fascist - using the most progressive rhetoric to promote regressive ends, the first of which was to stay in power forever… By the time his regime ended, I had come to the conclusion that Bhutto was the worst thing that had yet happened to Pakistan. I still maintain that he did more damage to the country than anyone else. Among other things, he was the first to try to appease the religious right. He banned liquor and gambling and declared Friday a holiday instead of Sunday. This was hypocrisy at its peak…..”
Mr. Musharraf was equally harsher on Mian Nawaz Sharif and touched upon his moral standards by vilifying him in Chapter18-Page 166 of his book: “Nawaz Sharif reneged on his promise not to indulge in politics. He showed the typical lack of character that he has come to be known for, launching a tirade of lies and distortion against me. Exile and isolation are an opportunity for introspection and critical self-analysis. Nawaz Sharif apparently learned nothing from his exile and failed to grow intellectually or politically”
To begin with Mr. Bhutto, he was without any exaggeration a leader of international caliber and repute. Mr. Musharraf may or may not appreciate but the fact is that to call a political leader in the modern civilized society as fascist is the filthiest slur inflicted on his/her person and political career. Had Mr. Bhutto been alive today, he could have digested anything but to be calumniated as fascist. To add insult to the injury, Mr. Musharraf even called him a hypocrite. Let it be clear to Mr. Musharraf that Mr. Bhutto was anything but a fascist as the essential features of fascism, namely excessive racism or hollow nationalism, never infested his thought process. He assumed state powers at a very delicate juncture when the armed forces of the country were demoralized and the entire nation was in a state of desperation due to loss of a major chunk of the motherland. Mr. Bhutto, like a dynamic leader equipped with the spirit of zeitgeist, took it upon himself to inspire the dispirited society and encourage the disheartened forces to seek new élan and vigor. In the process, he may have used nationalistic rhetoric to boost up the morale of the withered populus and the demoralized forces alike. As soon as the nation was back on normal track, he abandoned the use of such elixir.
Elsewhere Mr. Musharraf called Mr. Bhutto an autocrat ruler (pp 159) but did not demonstrate the verity of providing the real causes of such slide pervading the national political landscape. Soon after the inception of the new State of Pakistan, a juggernaut of oligarchic-autocratic system was imposed on its governing apparatus in the shape of an unholy trinity of civil, military bureaucracies and landed aristocracy - all three the remnants of British Raj.
There is no denying the fact that both M. Bhutto and Mr. Sharif were the finds of martial law dictators and were nourished, tutored and trained under the protégé and wings of authoritarian rulers. Both initiated their political career from the confines and comforts of ministerial offices rather than through caucuses of political organizations or mass contacts at the dusty streets. Both must have heard folk-tales of Muslim rule of a millennium over India and the style of Muslim monarchs. Both surely read about vice-regal type of British Raj of one and a half century. Raised in an environ imbibing a political mix of Muslim dynastic rule blended with British imperialistic snobberies and flavored with praetorian recipes of despotism, the representative type government was, obviously, alien to both of them. As such it was not odd that Mr. Bhutto ruled in the vice-regal style and Mr. Sharif on the Mughal pattern. They had history before them and rightly saw no future to play the people’s game. Paradoxically both now enjoy the overwhelming support of the hoi polloi. The political milieu had been and still remains murkier with the blessings of the Generals in politics and no intelligent and dynamic individual finds any other option to seek political power than to join the junta of the time. How true and sharp Dr. Ambedkar, the leader of scheduled caste and author of the Indian Constitution was when he opined in his book-‘Pakistan or Partition of India’: “For another, India’s army would no longer be dominated by Muslims and its primarily Hindu civilian government would not be vulnerable to the army. A safe army is better than a safe border.”
Pakistani nation, its state, politics, economy, social fabric, in fact all walks of life, have suffered tremendously due to the army with the result that even after sixty plus years, its people are unable to establish sustainable political system, economy and the right equation among different organs of the State. The political terrain of vast countryside has been rendered sterile and bootless by successive martial laws and no political seed can germinate or siblings grow in its soil. The upright types like Asghar Khan, Imran Khan and Aslam Baig are reduced to basket cases in this arena with the Orwellian 1984 contours. Only a seed sown in ISA pots can sprout out into a sibling which in turn can grow in the political nursery of the GHQ with sunshine from the apex office. Such plants maturing into trees can assume larger proportions to reach out to the lowly and the needy and cater to their demands and win their support. The adventurous-type generals have recklessly turned the motherland into a puppet theatre with the new initiates working as their pawns.
With all impudence at one’s command one cannot, however, impute the notion of fascist to Mr. Bhutto when viewed in the light of fourteen defining characteristics prescribed by political scientists for fascism. These are as under:
1. Powerful and Continuing Racism and Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Slogan like “Pakistan First” was coined by Mr. Musharraf and not by Mr. Bhutto who confined his rhetoric to peoples and their power.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. Both rulers succumbed to this temptation and do not fair well in the human rights field.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. It is Mr. Musharraf, like all his predecessor-generals, who had been all along using India as a probable threat to the security of Pakistan. Mr. Bhutto went soft with India throughout his tenure.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. All the dictators from FM Ayub to General Musharraf have abundantly displayed this tendency.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common. Here Mr. Musharraf is at par with Mr. Bhutto.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. The cornerstone of all martial law regimes had been excessive emphasis on national security and Indian threat syndrome.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. Who is the front-runner in this race, Mr.Bhutto, Gen. Zia or Gen. Musharraf?
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. Mr. Bhutto nationalized the corporations while Mr. Musharraf promoted corporatocracy.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because during a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. Labor unionism was at its peak during Mr. Bhutto’s era whereas it was substantially depressed during Mr. Musharraf regime.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Who is closer to the aforementioned features thus qualifying for clinching a niche in the club of fascist rulers? Certainly Mr. Bhutto was lacking in traits to meet these conditionalities and cannot be labeled as fascist by any measure.
