Preserving democracy is the key to Pakistan's well being and future stability, according to Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Pakistan's High Commissioner in London and long-term friend of the Bhutto family. In an exclusive interview with Shyam Bhatia of asianaffairs, Hasan also states that the astute role played by President Asif Zardari has been the key to saving the Pakistani federation.

AA: What are the causes of the recent instability witnessed in Pakistan?

WSH: There is not one cause, there are many causes. In fact we inherited a whole backlog of problems, including terrorism. And that is on top of the agenda: when the new government took office, when it was confronted with terrorism and American drone attacks that worsened the situation and proved counter productive. The redeeming feature of everything was that we had achieved to a great extent what Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto wanted.
For example she wanted Musharraf to go and to have free and fair elections, and she wanted everyone to participate in them. When Nawaz Sharif announced a boycott of elections, she really went out of her way to convince him to contest the elections. She told him how when Zia-ul Haq had held partyless elections, when we were all eliminated, then new elements came on the scene and we must not allow this to go on. She convinced him and he very usefully agreed to contest the elections. After the assassination he did an about turn and then Asif Zardari convinced him and said we must follow the wishes of Mohtarma and we must contest elections, saying we would like you to be our partner because we would like some sort of national reconciliation and political consensus. That's why Nawaz Sharif joined the coalition.

AA: So you are saying that President Zardari in effect saved Pakistan?

WSH: You must give credit to the president because he handled the situation very well. Number one, when the assassination took place, the whole country was on fire and one word from him could have sounded the death knell of the federation. People were demanding we should have nothing to do with the federation, yet he said that Mohtarma, his wife and leader, died to save Pakistan, not to destroy Pakistan. Those slogans 'Pakistan nakhappan' (We don't want Pakistan) were denounced by him, as well as by his son, Bilawal. Both denounced them, saying this was not the wish of Mohtarma and we must protect Pakistan by our lives. That's when things calmed down.

The nation was so clammed up. Once she was killed there were places where rioting took place and they were all engineered by the establishment in order to isolate people in Sindh before Sindh could take a drastic course out. It was Asif Zardari who handled the situation so well and subsequent measures that he took, political measures, — they all went a long way in consolidating democracy. For example he brought Nawaz Sharif in as a coalition partner. For the first time in Pakistan's history, you had four coalition governments running in the country. That means every political party was represented in the government management. Then we had the election of the prime minister. You see he was elected unanimously and this has never happened in the history of Pakistan. Mr Yusuf Raza Gilani was elected unopposed by all the parties, they all gave him high tributes; similarly, with the election of the president. He got over 70 per cent of the votes of the electoral college. So there couldn't be a better political situation that this that Mr Zardari and his colleagues had created.

AA: What about the controversy of reinstating the chief justice?

WSH: The issue of the judiciary was a bone of contention between us and Nawaz Sharif. Unfortunately, Nawaz Sharif was in a hurry, he is usually in a hurry, as well as he believes in the politics of confrontation. When he saw that the promise of restoring the chief justice made by Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, made by the president, made by the prime minister, was not being fulfilled, he thought that they are betraying the issue; he went on the warpath and pulled out of the central government. Then there was the governor of Punjab, he was appointed by Musharraf, he was not our appointee, Nawaz didn't like him. Subsequently, came this issue of the restoration of Chief Justice Ifthikar Chaudhry. All politicians like Nawaz Sharif and Aitzaz Ahsan, they all started saying on television that once Ifthikar Chaudhry was restored as chief justice, all Pakistan's problems would be resolved, that the prices will come down, people will have law and order, the war against terrorism will be over.

They were in a hurry, but the fundamental issue on which the PPP (Pakistan Peoples Party) fought the election was the restoration of parliament and the supremacy of parliament. They (the president and the prime minister) told Nawaz Sharif, 'Let's go step by step, we have to bear the constitutional package, including judicial reform, according to the Charter for Democracy. Let's have a discussion about the constitutional package.' But Nawaz wanted Ifthikar Chaudhry restored immediately.

The idea from our side was that the term of the existing Chief Justice, Mr Abdul Hameed Dogar, (replaced since), was due to expire on the 21st of March and we told them to wait for that time, but they wanted him restored immediately. Finally, they announced their long march — the showdown was to take place on March 16. The first long march they planned was so well managed by the government that there was no untoward incident, it was peaceful, they were provided all toilet and other facilities, and food was provided to them. But this long march announced for the 16th was announced when times were very bad. First of all we had the Marriot Hotel attack, the hotel is next to the presidency, parliament and diplomatic enclave. The diplomats had complained to the Ministry of the Interior that they feared there was going to be trouble, they did not want this march to take place on Constitution Avenue and it should be allocated some other venue. This was suggested to Mr Nawaz Sharif, but he didn't listen and continued with his march.

If you look at the television channels of the day, they said he had been detained. When I was asked why, I said to the journalist interviewing me, 'Open the television channels and you will see him leading the demonstration surrounded by police protection' and that was what he was doing. There was no stoppage of him; he went on with his procession. The only fear we had after the Marriot and Sri Lankan cricketers' incidents was that terrorists were at large, that there were plans to attack Nawaz Sharif, that there were reports of attempts to disrupt the rally and they could have done that easily with the use of one rocket launcher.

To avoid that situation the president in consultation with the prime minister announced the restoration of the chief justice on the 21st of March. As a matter of fact he had already announced that the government on its own would go to the Supreme Court to file a review petition regarding the political disqualification of the Sharif brothers. That was a good enough signal to the Sharif brothers that we mean business and when we have given a commitment about the restoration of the chief justice, we would keep it.
Unfortunately, the media created such hype that the chief justice was not going to be restored or that Nawaz Sharif or Shabaz Sharif was not going to be allowed to continue in Punjab. We were not given a chance to implement our commitments in a way that you would call civilised.

AA: Given the circumstances in which Chief Justice Ifthikar Chaudhry has been reinstated, has the president been weakened?

WSH: In my judgement this has not weakened Mr Zardari. He is an elected president. As I told you, 70 per cent of the Electoral College voted for him, he is the most formidable democratic ruler in the country today.

AA: So you would expect to see him serve out his full five year term?

WSH: Yes, if things remain the same, why not? The major factor in Pakistan politics was the extra constitutional intervention, which never allowed any democratically elected government to complete its term. People voted in Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif, but they never had the chance to vote them out. They were thrown out of power after two or three years, they were never allowed to complete their term. The only term that was completed was the military style democracy under Shaukat Aziz. The present situation is that the military is totally committed. We have faith in General Kayani and his colleagues, they are committed to democracy. But the circumstances are such that they also need the backing of the people to get them out of the present crisis they are facing due to the war on terror. In this situation I, as a diplomat and journalist, also feel that this government will complete its five years and I think we will be on the road to holding elections every five years.

AA: If it's not too embarrassing, could you give us your take on the stresses and strains that threaten the future of the federation?

WSH: I am not embarrassed by your question, people ask me this all the time and I have written about these issues. The fact is that the people of Pakistan have for the first time got democracy, genuine democracy where they have their own representatives managing their affairs. Although conditions are bad, very bad, we inherited a very bad economy, but still people have hope that things will move and that democracy will consolidate in due course of time and that the army will keep to the barracks or confine themselves to the war against terror.

As for the threats, let us look at what Mr. Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be. He wanted Pakistan to be a liberal, secular, pluralistic democracy. If you read his speeches, they are full of that enunciation. He was a modern man and he said that religion will have nothing to do with the affairs of the state, all citizens will be equal, Christians, Muslims, Hindus are all equal citizens in political sense; Pakistan will never be a theocratic state. About the economy he said he will never have a Pakistan where the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. He was very clear about these things. But unfortunately, for reasons best know to the establishment we inherited from the British Raj, the secular politics of Jinnah did not suit them and that was the reason why the first speech Jinnah made on the 7th of August, 1947 after the creation of the country was censored by the establishment at the time. They took out those parts of his speech which said religion would have nothing to do with the affairs of the state. They censored the speech and there was a lot of furore even at that time. Jinnah, Liaqat Ali Khan and all the leadership of the Muslim League were committed to a modern, democratic Pakistan. Jinnah said so many times, 'I want a Pakistan, a Muslim Pakistan (he never used the word Islam), a Muslim state which should be a model for other Muslim countries to follow, in other words he wanted other Muslim countries to follow Pakistan's style of democracy. But unfortunately because of India being a country six times the size of Pakistan, with much greater resources, the establishment here, the troika of military, civil and judicial forces, thought differently. The ideology of Jinnah did not suit them; they imposed a religious oriented ideology which brought back those religious parties that opposed Jinnah's vision of Pakistan
.
Again, nothing happened, things remained the same, religious parties never won any elections, they were routed by the people. The illiterate people of Pakistan voted against the religious parties before partition and they voted against them after partition. Then what happens? 1971 happens. Pakistan is dismembered for various reasons, especially denial of autonomy to the province of East Pakistan. They wanted control of their own resources and they were made to take a separatist course. In 1971 when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto took over, he was a very astute politician and decided this was the main issue that could make or break the country. So he got together all the leaders of the provinces and gave a constitution that guaranteed autonomy to the provinces. Even after 1970, if you go back to 1970 and see the religious rallies at the time, you will be astounded at how these religious parties lose elections. Only four or five religious leaders used to get elected. To the extent in the 1997 elections, which the PPP lost, the people of Pakistan, illiterate people of Pakistan, had the wisdom to give Pakistan a two party system. They only voted for the PMLN (Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz) and the PPP.

Qazi Hussain Ahmad, leader of the (fundamentalist) JUI (Jamiat-ul-Ulama-i-Islam ), got less number of votes in that election than a B grade film actress whom he used to call a 'whore' in public meetings. Even Imran Khan got fewer votes than that lady. He lost the election. If you go back to 1997 Pakistan, you will see the billboards all over the country, saying 'Qazi is coming, Qazi is coming...' The only elections in which the religious parties got substantive representation in parliament were the 2002 elections, which were organised and manipulated by President Musharraf in order to blackmail the West.

He gave two provinces to the religious parties and those two parties were next to Afghanistan. It was just to tell the Americans that 'If I stay, you will be all right, if I do not stay these religious parties will take Pakistan, they will take over the country.'

Despite all this Pakistan even today — if you see the 2008 elections — how many seats did the religious parties get? Not many. PPP emerged as the only federal party. Nawaz Sharif made a mistake by keeping himself to Punjab and that too he only got votes from north and central Punjab, not from the south.

AA: So how strong are the fundamentalist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, presumably they used to be supported by the army?

WSH: Lashkar, the funding they used to get from both external and internal sources is still there. We are striking at them, finding where they are and we want to root them out. But again, when you have brought up a child for 20 years, you cannot get rid of him overnight. Its not the army who brought them up, I would like to correct you. I remember a lecture by Selig Harrison in 2001 when he said that before 9/11, he advised the CIA not to create this monster because it will not be possible for them to control them. And the CIA assessment was that they are fierce fighters and only fierce, religiously committed fighters can counter the Soviet Union.

AA: Does the future of these extremist and fundamentalist groups depend on what happens in Afghanistan?

WSH: It does depend because Afghanistan is the chief actor and both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and I keep repeating a quote from Lord Chris Patton where he says if you want stability in Afghanistan, you must have strong democracy in Pakistan. Also in Afghanistan I think you must eliminate the jihadis because if you don't, they will seek territory elsewhere. They almost came to Swat and they captured Swat. It was the armed forces of Pakistan who confronted them and forced them to retreat.

AA: But Swat has been given over to the jihadis?

WSH: No there is some sort of misperception over Swat. There has been an agreement with the local people as well and of course there is an element of the Taliban in that. But the fact is that the affairs of the Swati people have always been run by a system that translates as justice and fair play from the days of the Wali of Swat. That is according to their tribal traditions. They have their jirgahs (tribal assemblies) and jirgahs would decide things instantly. If someone molested anybody, he would be punished and, yes, the punishments would be draconian. Fort example if someone committed a theft and there was no reason to do it, they would chop off his hand. If someone molested a girl, they would definitely stone him to death. You will be happy to know that since the agreement was signed with the government, there has been peace. Girls are going to their schools, women have started coming out of their houses, so things have changed. That's why we have said to our British and American friends that we must not ignore the option of a dialogue and that's why they are now thinking of allowing Karzai to start a dialogue with the Taliban.

AA: Do people in Pakistan still blame India for their troubles and, if so, is that complaint justified?

WSH: You know there is the usual perception in both India and Pakistan that there are two agencies that create trouble for each other. That perception does exist and also the nature of Pakistani or Indian society to instantly rush to the blame game. Pakistan did Mumbai, India did the Marriot. But because of the blame game, the real issue gets out of sight, namely who are the killers. Who are the people who committed this Mumbai tragedy? They are extremists. I tell you something. On November 22 President Zardari came out with a wide ranging offer to India in his video interview with the Indian media. He said, 'There is a little Indian in me and there is a little Pakistani in you, you cannot destroy these two. So let us reconcile and let us find ways of cooperating in the region, let us do something for the benefit of our future relationship, let's get rid of passports, let's get rid of visas, let's have economic union so that we can mobilise our resources for the benefit of our people. Lo and behold there was no response from South Block (Ministry of External Affairs, Delhi). Thus the first victim of this Mumbai incident was composite dialogue. A lot of progress had been made until this point.

AA: Is there any doubt that the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks originated from Pakistan?

WSH: There was doubt at one point. The Indians created the doubt themselves when they said the Deccan Mohammedans or someone like that was responsible. Then we saw a statement by the Indian Muslims Independence Movement, which actually identified the targets where they were going to strike. So we didn't believe that Pakistanis were involved. But later when we investigated and India provided the DNA of Ajmal Kasab, it was obvious he was the one. We have arrested six people and they will probably go on trial soon. Indians also mishandled the situation because they thought they had Pakistan in a corner and they must hammer it hard. They didn't accept any offer of co-operation, they should have accepted our offer of cooperation, they should have accepted joint commission, joint investigation. It helps a lot when you sit face to face, then you get to do things which you otherwise would not do.

AA: Now that you have an elected democratic government in Pakistan, can you say if agencies like the ISI are in cahoots with some of the extremist organisations, or has that been the case in the past? It's a gray, mysterious area.

top