Some
Hijackings, Some Myths, Some Issues, Some Facts
By
Mukhlis
SYDNEY:
In dictionaries, 'Hijacking' means: a) to steal by stopping a
vehicle on the highway b) to commandeer (a flying airplane) especially
by coercing the pilot at gunpoint c) to stop and steal from (a
vehicle in transit).
Did
the PIA flight returning from Colombo on Oct 12, 1999 fit the
above definition? I don’t know. But what I do know is that
Nawaz was thrown into jail for hijacking.
Going
by the above criteria and applying similar logic, should Musharraf
be thrown into Attock jail now for 1-1/2 years for what happened
to PIA flights PK-356 & PK-362 on January 17, 2004?
Is
stopping two flights, diverting them from their original path,
and making people sit inside for hours without any reason considered
hijacking? Nawaz was condemned for something similar by the same
general who is using similar dirty tricks to stop parliamentarians
from reaching Islamabad.
On
to other issues or myths.
Myth:
The army made way for democracy but un-democratic politicians
messed it all up:
Why
do people say things like “After the martial law the army
made way for elected leaders but there was a decade of darkness
and thank God Army came in again to save us” or “After
the martial law the politicians were given a chance but they completely
ruined it”.
Really,
again, is it that simple? The military takes over for a decade,
ruins the whole political process, cultivates its own sham democratic
leaders which it feels comfortable with, labels them as true and
honest individuals, advertises their faces to Pakistanis, helps
them win elections through rigging and allows them to do massive
corruption as long as they are willing to toe the line. Is this
what anyone would term as military submitting to the wishes of
the Pakistani people and allowing them to choose rulers of their
own liking?
And
when these politicians refuse to take dictation, the military
turns around, demonizes them and then admonishes the people (on
whom they had earlier enforced these leaders in the first place)
and raps them on the knuckles for not being mature enough to be
able to elect real democratic leaders, not worthy of democracy
and then holds on to power for another 10 years and starts cultivating
another set of sham and corrupt leaders that it is comfortable
with.
Does
that make sense? Why
do people blame democracy when actually it is semi-dictatorial
politicians, cultivated by the military, winning through rigged
elections who should be blamed? And did the army really give the
people a chance when individuals like Nawaz were being
“made” Prime Minister.
Really,
does anyone believe Nawaz got 100+ seats in the 1990 elections
without ISI’s help?
Issue:
People remained quiet when NS/BB were thrown out
Another
argument by people who give logics about military running the
country is: Why did people not come out when Nawaz or BB etc were
thrown out?
Here’s
a question for them: Give me an estimate of how many people will
come out if Musharraf was thrown into jail tomorrow? How many
people do you think will come out to protest and face jail/bullets
and risk their lives for Ze Commando if he was stripped of his
office (or rather his offices - around half a dozen of them) ?
Going
by the referendum poll should the answer be 90% of the total eligible
voters, or going by the fact that people stopped facing bullets
for politics after the MRD movement, should the answer be zilch,
zero?
Issue:
Nawaz tried to destabilize the Pakistan Army by appointing his
favorite general.
How
come Musharraf can reshuffle the army like crazy and fire top
5 people in the Air force (for opposing his Kargil thingy) but
the civilian PM has to be kicked out for doing virtually the same
thing? Musharraf is even said to be grooming one of his relatives
to take over the helm of affairs (Corps Commander Lahore, Lt.
Gen. Shahid Aziz). I guess it is ok as long as it is Musharraf
who is doing it!
Myth:
The Army has come in to save the country.
Another
argument that I don’t understand. We’ll often hear
that the army has to come in when things are going bad in order
to “save” the country. Corps commanders act on their
own and capture PTV stations before their beloved Supreme Commander
touches the ground. OK.. I kinda get the argument.
So
tell me, where were these very same patriotic corps commanders
when Ayub’s policy was fomenting dissent in East Pakistan?
Or when Zia’s policies were spreading the evils of heroin,
Kalashnikov, religious intolerance, hatred and draconian laws?
Where
were the so-called swift acting patriotic corps commander generals
who come into action the minute their commander was about to be
fired. But they remain mum for decades while they see their country
breaking up in front of their own eyes or going up in the flames
of hatred, intolerance and hudood ordnances.
Where’s their patriotism when their country is going kaput
because of the policies of their commander? Ohhh.. wait a minute..
now I remember.. you can’t oppose the commander’s
orders, right? Even if the commander is leading the country to
hell! But you sure as hell can screw the whole constitution when
one of your wardi-wallas is being sacked by the PM.
Myth:
People came dancing out into the streets…..
And
what’s this argument that I see again and again… When
Musharraf took over and Nawaz was fired, people came out dancing
in the streets, everyone was happy that he was gone and people
felt relieved etc. etc.?
Where
in any book does it say that an Army general has Carte Blanche
to overthrow a government if he thinks that at a certain point
in time people’s acceptance of the elected government’s
actions has gone below par (the criteria of “below par”
also being the prerogative of the generals to decide).
Governments
have their high and low points. Should American generals start
charging towards DC the minute a Newsweek poll shows
that the US Prez’s acceptance within the people has dropped
to below 50 or 40 or 30%? No.. they would wait for his tenure
to end and then let the people decide.
Governments
have their ups and downs. The acceptance level doesn’t remain
stuck at a certain percentage for 5 years. Low acceptance doesn’t
give anyone the right (especially if that anyone is an ex-commando
government servant) to have his way with the country.
Nawaz’s
approval rating was very high when he first came to power and
when he exploded the nuclear devices. His rating was low at the
time when ze General took over.
But
the question is: So what? How does the low ratings of the Prime
Minister translate into a blank check for a Kargilian brained
general to rule Pakistan? How does that give the right to a serving
grade 22 (or whatever his grade was) officer to take over a country
of 144 million people?
And
by the way, how many of the people who are now giving these arguments
will hold on to the same logic if a recent survey showed that
Musharraf’s rating are even lower than Nawaz in 1997? Nope..
then the argument will change.
Then
it will be something like “You see Musharraf is the best
hope for Pakistan. You see, people don’t know anything about
geo-politics. See, we cannot simplify such a complicated issue
like this with just a simple survey. See, Musharraf can’t
leave just because of the fact that people will be happy to see
Musharraf leave. See, see..” Yeah right!
