Pakistan Today, Here Tomorrow
I cannot speak for the credibility of the Asian Human Rights Commission, nor about this story they published entitled Pakistan: The last nail in the coffin of democracy. However, it does ring true to me based on other material I have read in Western media. To quote liberally, if not to lift wholesale:
The year 2017 in Pakistan has been marked by tussles between state institutions and the army. The chain of events that started with a seemingly whimsical news item about the war of words between the military and civilian top brass, known as the Dawn Leaks, culminated into a sit-in the capital city of Islamabad that lasted for more than 21 days in November, and ended with bloodshed and a surrender document duly signed by the civilian government under the bayonet of army.
The sit-in was called by religious cleric Khadim Hussain Rizvi, Chief of the hitherto unknown Labbaik Ya Rasool Allah (LYRA), a militant and political organisation that purports itself to be peaceful. The sit-in was a reaction to the alleged amendments in the Election Bill 2017, which changed the wording of the declaration required of elected parliamentarians proclaiming the finality of the prophet hood. The government soon reverted back to the original text, but the damage was done.
The clerics called a sit-in the heart of Pakistan’s capital city, and kept the twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi virtually inaccessible for 21 plus days, causing severe troubles for daily commuters. The situation was a Lahore Model Town de ja vu of 2012, with the care taker government of Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi unable to take any action against the violent protestors.
Finally, after being served several ultimatums, the government was forced to take action against the protestors on November 25. What ensued is a textbook example of the utter break down of state apparatus and police incompetence. The police forces were beaten up by the protestors, with many officers receiving severe injuries (footage of the attack on the police can be viewed here). In total 173 were injured by the fundamentalists including 54 police officials and among them 32 police officials are seriously injured. According to the electronic media, seven persons including one child were killed, whereas other sources claim that around 45 persons were killed.
The freedom of expression was the first casualty of the pandemonium, with TV channels ordered to go off air by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority. For 42 hours, the channels remained off air, unprecedented in the country. Meanwhile, journalists, cameramen and photojournalists covering the protest were brutally beaten by the protestors (watch the footage here).
The army was then called on to take control of the situation, in aid of the civilian government, under Article 256 of the Constitution of Pakistan. In contravention to the clear orders however, the military chief refused to intervene and “suggested” that the government find a peaceful solution to the chaos. Given the circumstances and the refusal to act despite orders from the Premier of the state, it must be questioned why Article 6 of the Constitution was not applied against the General?
Abandoned by the army, the government was forced to meet the demands of Rizvi and his band of hooligans. The agreement, hailed as a suicide note by analysts, includes preposterous demands, such as ease of filing an FIR for blasphemy cases and having three representatives of LYRA in the Punjab textbook board to review the curriculum. Other salient features of the agreement were that a board of clerics led by Pir Muhammad Afzal Qadri will be set up to probe remarks made by Punjab Law Minister Rana Sanaullah against the persecution of Ahmadis, and Sanaullah will have to accept the decision made by the board. Also, no leniency will be given to those convicted by courts for blasphemy, and no ban will be imposed on the use of loudspeakers.
Furthermore, the agreement notes that two representatives of Tehreek-i-Labaik (LYRA) will be included in the panel assigned to decide changes in textbooks. The officials will push for inclusion of translation of the Holy Quran, and chapters about Seerat-un-Nabi (PBUH) and Muslim leaders. Every year, November 25 will be observed as “Martyrs of Prophet’s honour” day.
The agreement clearly reveals the influence of the extremist clergy in Pakistan’s state affairs. The preposterous demands were accepted by the state to the letter, and the surrender document was duly signed by Interior Minister Mr. Ahsan Iqbal and cleric Khaidim Hussain Rizvi. Ironically, the guarantor of the agreement was the army itself. Moreover, in a TV interview, Khadim Hussan Rizvi admitted that he dealt only with the military leadership and the ISI, and it “must have been” the army leadership which got the Interior Minister to sign the agreement. A video of the director general Rangers disbursing money amongst protestors after the sit-in ended caused many to question whether this was a soft coup or a conspiracy to over throw the elected civilian government. However, shamelessly the army general was making the selfies with the protestors and assuring them that army stands with you.
By ceding to the demands of the violent demonstrators, the state has virtually given absolute power and blanket immunity to fundamentalism and militancy in the name of religion in the country. The government has set a shameful legacy for itself, wherein some 1500 people managed to overcome the government and a country of 200 million people, a 600,000 strong army and the world’s sixth nuclear state. The whole world saw the drama unfold that leased the people of Pakistan to non-state actors, who will now decide who is ‘Muslim enough’ to live in the country.
If this is accurate, it bodes ill. And not just for that segment of the Pakistani population that doesn’t want to live under the rule of this particular brand of fundamentalists. Militant fanatics like to export their ideologies, and the West has made its borders permeable to violent militants.
It is not as apocalyptic as it is being made out to be. Pakistan is in a transition economically, socially, democratically and institutionally. This single event should be seen in perspective.
The event was unnecessary and inconvenienced ordinary Pak people and had little public support. It did not result in large scale disruptions and violence as it had in 2007 at the Red Mosque. It could had been handled much more effectively and quickly if the elected Sharif administration was not so inept. It could also have been avoided if the Sharif family would relinquish stranglehold on the largest political party.
The Barelvi muslim protestors turned out to be less radical than their Wahabi counterparts. The military acted with restraint. The Court admonished the military. Now if Pakistan’s political parties can move beyond “family” franchises, the rest of Pak people can happily concentrate on economic development unfolding via the Chinese infrastructure investments.
The Asian Human Rights Commission is not a neutral observer, they have an agenda.
“About us
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) was founded in 1984 by a prominent group of jurists and human rights activists in Asia. The AHRC is an independent, non-governmental body, which seeks to promote greater awareness and realisation of human rights in the Asian region, and to mobilise Asian and international public opinion to obtain relief and redress for the victims of human rights violations. AHRC promotes civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights.”
See: http://www.humanrights.asia/about
Here is Al Jazerra’s explanation:
“Anti-blasphemy protests explained
On November 8, hundreds of anti-blasphemy protesters entered the Pakistani capital Islamabad to protest against a slight change in the country’s electoral law, which they saw as a softening of the state’s position against Ahmadi Muslims.
The protesters are led by Khadim Hussain Rizvi, a firebrand cleric who has long campaigned against Ahmadi Muslims, accusing them of blasphemy and regularly inciting violence against them.”
See: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/pakistan-anti-blasphemy-row-continues-dead-clash-171126092900104.html
So this was about a Muslim cleric and his fear that the government was implementing some terrible compromise.
If Pakistan was truly a democracy then this might be important. But it is an amalgamation of civil government with Islam, and with the military providing ultimate oversight. The civil government holds elections, enacts laws, administers those laws, and uses a judiciary system to rule on those laws. But religious clerics and their followers rein in that government when it trespasses on religious matters in any way. (Based solely on their opinion and using mass demonstrations or riots as the whip.) Then in times of extreme conflict between the civil government and religion, the military imposes its will. (Someone has to control the chaos.) This time, that was by inaction and the civil government was forced to surrender.
Pakistan is not alone in using this sort of amalgamation. And secularism has not been embraced in the Muslim world.
“From the early years of the republic, state and mosque have been closely intertwined. All mosques are state-owned, all imams are state-employed and for decades, the Friday sermons were centrally written and distributed.”
See: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/fraderike-geerdink-/turkey-secularism_b_9818250.html
“Mr. Basuki was put on trial for blasphemy, but one day after the election, prosecutors decided to drop the charges — reinforcing the widespread belief that the whole case was politically motivated.”
See: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/27/opinion/election-tests-indonesian-democracy.html
The population of western countries tend to believe in separation of church and state, so we miss the subtle interplays going on in Muslim countries.
Pakistan is but just one of most Muslim nations in the ME (at least) in which gov’t is composed of both religious institutions and to some degree secular ones. They are often in direct conflict with mutually exclusive objectives. Balances of power are maintained by the military as the only option outside of civil war
Civil war almost never serves the interests of the elites who with the elite military order will preserve those interests first and foremost. The rest is just squabbling among the masses… keeping order is the first priority…. who’s rights are greater or lesser in any given issue is secondary as long as the elite’s aren’t being adversely affected in a serious way.
The military serves the elites. The elites serve themselves. Maintaining order is the primary elite’s objective .