Inside view from Pakistan

For the NZZ, Shehar Bano Khan, reporter for the Pakistani but English written newspaper dawn, writes about her view of the nature of Islam in her country. As I wrote about a similar topic some days ago, I would like to share her thoughts with you.

A little bit of background information. Since the independence, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has its share of problems. At its foundation, Pakistan consisted of the Pakistan we know today and Bangladesh being separated by over 1600 kilometres. Even though both parts had and have a majority of Muslims, they were different tribes. Jinnah, Pakistan’s first President declared Urdu to be the state language which left the Bangladesh who spoke Bengali on the outside and thus deepening tensions between the two parts

In 1956 Pakistan had its first constitution with Urdu and Bengali as state languages but there was no stability as four prime ministers took office in two years. Iskander Mirza declared martial law only to be overthrown by Ayub Khan, the first Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army.

Ayub changed the constitution in 1961 and got elected in 1965. Even though the vote doesn’t come close to what we would call democratic, they were the only presidential elections in Pakistan up to date.

In 1971 the two parts of Pakistan fought and with Indian support, Bangladesh gained independence. After the fighting stopped, the generals handed the power to Zulfikar al Bhutto. 1977, General Zia-ul-Haq took power and had the former president executed for authorizing the murder of a political opponent. During his rule, Pakistan became an Islamic country.

In 1985, the Zia-ul-Haq handed power back to a puppet but the puppet became to independent and conveniently died on a plane crash.

A short democratic period followed with Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, who were each elected twice and removed from office on charges of corruption. Benazir Bhutto is of course the daughter of Zulfikar al Bhutto. Therefore her dislike of the army needs no further explanation.

Since 1999 Pervez Musharraf rules Pakistan. As in China, the Army is not just the organisation, which protects the country from foreign foes, but is also one of the largest landowners and has a large part of the economy under direct control.

The fear of the Generals therefore is not just to loose power, but also to loose control over a huge industry and a lot of resources.

Lal Masjid, also known as the red mosque is located in Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital.

Zia-ul-Haq, as well as the Pakistani state security ISI had and have very close ties with the founder of Lal Masjid. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the mosque recruited and trained mujahedin.

After Abdullah (the founder) was assassinated in 1998, his sons Abdul Aziz and Abdul Rashid Ghazi took over the mosque, making it a centre for Islamist teaching and openly opposed the government, partly because its support for the US lead War on Terror.

During 2006 and the first half of 2007, the mosque's leaders set up a Sharia Law in the premises and occupied surrounding buildings.

After a lot of demonstrations and gun battles, Musharraf ordered the storming of the mosque, which resulted in about 70 militants and 8 soldiers killed.

But she denies, this incident to be a sign of Talibanisation of Pakistan. I read some of her articles online and some further of her colleges. One of them writes, that it is wrong of the Musharraf to try to get control over all his country and that the war of the Pakistani Army against the rebellious tribes in Pakistan can’t be won and therefore shouldn’t be fought.

I think, this is a very disturbing sign. What kind of country allows parts of its country to be occupied by militant forces and tries not to regain control over those regions?

Shehar Bano Khan writes, that sixty years of independence are no reason to celebrate, as Pakistan has never had found its peace and freedom. The ordinary people expect little from their leaders and it makes no difference, if they wear an uniform or not.

Islam, she continues, is just a scapegoat for Musharraf, to justify his rule. Receiving billions in aid from the US, he needs a Islamist threat to justify his rule. It is known, that Musharraf and his predecessors have through the secret service supported the Taliban. As well as the US have supported the Taliban in the past.

On the other hand, Islam has become a more important part of Pakistani politics than it was when Pakistan was founded. It is difficult to find the truth from here. I agree, that there were not many demonstrations after the storming of the Red Mosque and there were large demonstrations for Iftikhar Chaudhry, the High-Judged who was removed form office by Musharraf and since then has been reinstalled.

She admits, that there is a difference between rural and urban places. In the cities, the radical Islam has little influence. But on the countryside, the government is weak and radical Islam can profit from the weak state. A peasant reported, that he sent five out of seven of his children to madrasahs, the Islamistic schools and he receives support from Islamistic groups.

In the past, the religious parties have had little success. But as most of the regimes were either controlled by the Military or corrupt, Islamistic partys may, as in Palaestine, win future elections.

If the Army would accept such a victory or act as in Turkey is unknown.