Lifting emergency
Pakistan is a highly misunderstood nation. Various media reports selectively declare it to be the most dangerous place in the world, even worse than Iraq. The Foreign Offices of Western nations have issued warnings (travel advice) to their citizens regarding visiting Pakistan. All these paint a picture of gloom and doom. The imposition of emergency, the curtailment of selected TV Channels from broadcasting their views, the detention of some members of the judiciary, politicians and vocal human rights activists, only exacerbates the negative image.
BBC Correspondent Hugh Sykes’ travelogue titled: ‘How to take a holiday in Pakistan’ broadcast on November 10, 2007 appeared as a whiff of fresh air. He drove via GT Road from Islamabad to Peshawar and onwards to Chitral on a rented car, devoid of any armed guards or security. He provides graphic details of how he offered lifts to complete strangers along the way, the camaraderie developed and general bonhomie displayed by his casual companions, which included children, families and young men. His conclusion sums up his exact impressions: “The notion that Pakistan is more dangerous than Iraq is absurd. Until recently suicide bombs, murder, and kidnapping were routine in Iraq. And there is no way I would do there what I have just done in Pakistan: take a holiday.”
Coming back to the subject of emergency, indeed it is an abhorrent step which implies the suspension of some fundamental rights of people. It can only be imposed under specified security imperatives endangering the very existence of the state. Although Pakistan’s chequered history has the precedence of numerous impositions of emergency, some justified and some controversial, yet we have to examine the current scenario before passing judgment. Each entity will examine the rationale through its own tunnel vision. Politicians will claim it is to restrict them and extend the rule of the present incumbent, while the judiciary will maintain that the emergency is to clip their new found wings or for the President to avoid an unpleasant ruling by the Supreme Court against his eligibility for reelection as President. Media would perceive the grounds for imposing emergency as displeasure with its extensive use of “freedom of speech”. Conspiracy theorists will claim that it is in the US interest to persist with General Musharraf to continue his rule as President while retaining his uniform, in order to serve the “War against terror”.
In a BBC interview broadcast on Saturday, President General Pervez Musharraf took strong exception to the growing criticism about him in the West regarding his decision to impose emergency in Pakistan. In another interview with The Washington Post, President Musharraf reaffirmed his belief in democracy saying emergency was needed for peaceful conduct of upcoming parliamentary elections. The step aimed at heading off further deterioration in law and order in the face of growing terrorism threat. Mr. John Negroponte, the visiting US Deputy Secretary of State, urged President General Pervez Musharraf to lift emergency as it was not compatible with free, fair and credible elections. The President however did not agree with the viewpoint stating that he would call off emergency rule only when the security situation improves in Pakistan.
That brings us to the other reason for imposing emergency, cited by the President, i.e. to combat militancy and extremism. Unfortunately, the roots of emergency emanate from the NWFP, the tribal areas and Swat region. In five years of its provincial government, MMA was unable to check the scourge of militancy which only gained strength and now needs to be dealt with a firm hand. In a related development, The New York Times of November 19, 2007, in its report titled: ‘U.S. hopes to arm Pakistani tribes against Al Qaeda’, informs that a new and classified American military proposal outlines an intensified effort to enlist tribal leaders in the frontier areas of Pakistan to fight against Al-Qaeda and Taliban. The proposal is modeled in part on a similar effort by American forces in Anbar Province in Iraq that has been hailed as a great success in fighting foreign insurgents there. US Department of Defense is about to start funding the Frontier Corps (FC) because until now, the FC has not received American military financing because the corps technically falls under the Pakistani Interior Ministry, a non-military agency that the Pentagon ordinarily does not deal with. But American officials say the FC is in the long term the most suitable force to combat an insurgency.
Time will tell whether the emergency has been effective in checking militancy.
Source: The Nation
Date:11/21/2007
” 
” 
” 
” 
