Dr Ghayur Ayub

ARMY has played two important roles in the history of Pakistan; a unified disciplined force; and a strong politicised unit. America accepted both roles from early 1950s. Within a few years, the army created a strong liaison with its American counterpart and the political elite based on its professional capabilities. The politicians, on other hand, did not build such a bond and the relationship between Karachi (the then capital) and Washington started on a shaky ground. Reason?

The centuries-old slave-master system of British Raj which was so deeply entrenched in our society that the civilian leaders accepted the slave mindset and the generals took on the role of masters. This position was reflected by a foreign office dispatch No 105, dated December 23, 1952 sent from Karachi by the American Consul General, A Gibson. He wrote, “He (Ayub) stated that the Pakistan Army will not allow the political leaders to get out of hand, and the same is true regarding the people of Pakistan.” In another dispatch in 1953, Mr. Gibson wrote, “The Pakistan Army would not allow either politicians or the public to ruin the country”. This was the ‘master’ mindset of army generals and had been perceived by the Americans five years after independence.

This perception was reinforced in the following years after Sikandar Mirza became the president. According to one dispatch, “by May 19, 1958, five months before the first Martial Law, President Sikandar Mirza and Gen. Ayub Khan separately told the American Ambassador that only dictatorship would work in Pakistan.” In another dispatch the High Commissioner wrote, “The president if he can help it will not allow elections to be held, and he has in mind a personal coup with army support.” What Sikandar Mirza didn’t know was that General Ayub had something else up his sleeves, known to the Americans and clarified by yet another dispatch of October 9, 1958. It stated, “at present he (Ayub) is finding his feet but when he does so and understands more clearly the power of his command and opportunity before him, the strain on his loyalty to the president might be put to the test.” And that strain was put to the test within twenty days after the coup when he exiled Mirza and himself became the President. Earlier, the President of America endorsed the military coup through a letter sent to Sikandar Mirza on October 11, 1958.

The bickering between slave-minded political leaders and crafty manipulation by master-minded generals in the1950s became a benchmark for future politics of Pakistan. Robert E. Goodin described this relationship correctly when he wrote, “there are two themes related to the role of Pakistan military in politics. To work in the background as catalytic intrigues and keep the incumbent government weak and unstable or help bringing it down through martial law with announcement that it would bring a sustainable democracy and improved economic situation to the country.” This rhetoric was bellowed by General Ayub, Gen Zia and Gen Musharaf.

Slaves, by nature, develop a deep inferiority complex and lose the principles of uprightness. When such people achieve higher positions, they become prey to self-projection, unethical nepotism and a desire for unending financial gain. They treat people working for them as their slaves and bow down before those whom they consider their masters. Our politicians inherited this mentality which became a recipe for corruption and allowed it to trickle down to the gross roots. No wonder corruption has invaded the fabric of our society, breeding like a virus in our minds. It has become greed-based among the rich and need-based among the poor, splitting the public into ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. It has also infiltrated civilian institutions, breaking their structure and making the poor, poorer and the rich, richer. Today, people who are not corrupt in civilian institutions are sidelined and treated as lepers.

It is not that the armed forces escaped corruption. No; but corruption remained among the top hierarchy making them financially sound during their service and after retirement. Thus 1958 coup showered them with unprecedented perks and privileges and 1977 coup extended their jobs to civil service and semi-autonomous bodies by introducing 10% quota. To avoid the trickledown effect of corrupt practices down to bottom, they kept the well-being of the soldiers in their mind and provided them with all the facilities at subsidised rates in purpose-built shopping centres in the cantonments. This was equivalent to the ‘’Roti, Kapra aur Makan’ motto of Zulifqar Ali Bhutto which never came to fruition under the politicians.

To strengthen the army as an institution immediately after the defeat in 1971, National Defence College was built which became the hub of character building. In an interview, the chief of the college once spoke more like a politician than an army professional on socio-political environment, state of economy, building up national security and structuring nation building. What was taught in the college came out in the shape of the ‘Green Book 2000.’ The book concentrates on nation building and military contribution in political, social and economic spheres. Some compare it with the ‘Red Book’ of Mao. The words in the book were reflected by the acts of the generals who worked like members of a close-knit family and steered ahead in the fields of banking, insurance, construction, security, pharmaceuticals, industry, agriculture and social services primarily for the benefit of retired military personnel. They showed by practice, how to keep the military institution safe, sound, united and progressive. Someone might not agree with the notion by saying “over the years the interests have narrowed down from the greater benefit of the institution to personal welfare of the generals.” But how can one explain the visible difference in surroundings as he steps in a cantonment from a civilian area? It cannot be contributed to the work of the generals with narrow interest.

Against this background, how can we explain the gradual destruction of civilian institutions and spiralling corruption? Can we put the blame squarely on the army and for that matter on the Americans? Not really. They might have acted as catalysts to some extant but major responsibility falls on the shoulders of the politicians. A vast majority of the public certainly think so. They accuse them that instead of putting their house in order to curb corruption and rebuild institutions the politicians keep strolling on the path which leads to more corruption and institutional destruction. This is the sad story of our society led by the political leaders with slave mentality who shoot blank shots in the air to kill the demons that spread corruption and destroy the institutions knowing full well that those demons actually reside in their hearts.

Umar Waqar

AS scenes of the Iron Man of Libya and Africa being dragged, ridiculed, tortured and brutally killed flashed around the world, I felt pain and anguish. Despite his limitations and idiosyncrasies, Colonel Qaddafi was once the leader of Libya who enjoyed respect in Africa and Pakistan, and it is a fact that his name still adores the cricket Stadium in Lahore and that a lot of Pakistani boys draw their names from the word Gaddafi.

While working on the paper I happened to go through extracts of Andrew J Dubrin’s book, ‘The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Leadership’ .While further searching for traits of great leaders who have trekked this arduous path before our times, I was amazed by one personality, Hazrat Umar Ibnal Khattab(RA), I was quite enthralled and disappointed, enthralled because Hazrat Umar’s personality is a beacon of leadership and disappointed because Ben Ali, Gaddafi, Mubarrak and Bashar al Assad could not use this beacon of leadership despite a ready access to Islamic history.

The aim is not to write an epitaph on Muammar Gaddafi, but do some soul searching and find some clues of bankruptcy of present day Muslim leadership. Since I had done some work related to situation in the Middle East, I am reproducing an extract from my article published in the Nation on 30 March this year, “Welcome to the Greater Middle East, where every existing fault line is being shaken to create anarchy; some as old as the ones left by the Lawrence of Arabia and others created by self-confident Gaddafis and Mubaraks. The leadership should have understood that the common man cannot be suppressed for too long, especially in this time of information and empowerment. You can stuff billion of dollars in Swiss Banks and build villas in every continent, but you cannot buy peace and security for you and your people. Where are the $10 billion left by the Shah of Iran, and where will the $60 billions of Mubarak family end up; these will never go to the Iranian and the Egyptian people. These will be tagged as ‘frozen’ and used by the Western banks and governments to play the game of chaos called the ‘long war’. Gaddafi’s billions are already being used against Libya by the European-American colossus to arm the rebels and run expensive media campaign frightening the Arab elite that they may be next in line.”

Based on analysis of bankruptcy of present day Muslim leadership and the trends of people’s response to dictatorial policies in the Islamic Lands, I have developed a GUIDE FOR MUSLIM LEADERS OF OUR TIMES and offer it to present and future leadership of the Islamic World(pun not intended). In this time of Information Empowerment, You cannot befool the people for a long time, people are intelligent, sensitive and their threshold of patience should not be tested indefinitely. Leadership is responsibility, responsibility and responsibility, and nothing else, if you think that leadership is a privilege, you are at the wrong place and on the wrong side of history.

The State that you lead and its wealth is actually an Ammanat (trust) and belongs to the people, even a penny taken from the state’s exchequer should be spent on the people, you can stuff billion of dollars in Swiss Banks and build villas in every continent, but you cannot buy peace and security for you and your people. In case of doubt, visit the graves of Marcos of Philippines and Shah of Iran. Your genuine assets are the ones which stay inside your country of birth, any investment or money siphoned to foreign banks would never be yours, and it may be used against you and your country men,(Gaddafi’s opponent were armed with the same money that he had stuffed in foreign banks).

Think of why Nelson Mandela is respected around the world and Hosni Mubarak is being tried in the Egyptian courts, why is Musharraf unable to return to Pakistan? Who has more respect at the end of the day, Nelson Mandela or Shah of Iran? Islands of prosperity built by the elite in a sea of misery may last for days and years but you cannot live with this arrangement for ever. If you are live with hundreds of guards and cavalcades of tens of vehicles to protect your movement and cannot go to a Paan Shop and chat with a common man on the street, there is something seriously wrong in your governance… your time may be running out.

Courtesy Wikipedia, a quote from Saeed M Mohtsham’s research paper Vision and Visionary Leadership – an Islamic Perspective: on Caliph Umar’s rule, says it all! “He used to monitor very closely the public policy and had kept the needs of the public central to his leadership approach. As second Caliph of Islam, he refused to chop off the hands of the thieves because he felt he had fallen short of his responsibility to provide meaningful employment to all his subjects. As a ruler of a vast kingdom, His vision was to ensure that every one in his kingdom should sleep on a full stomach…He also knew that just having a vision is not enough unless it is supported by effective strategies. He didn’t only have a vision; he truly transformed his vision into actions. He used to walk through the streets almost every night to see if there is any one needy or ill.

The last and not the least, I will put in a quote from Gibbon to conclude the paper: “Yet the abstinence and humility of Umar were not inferior to the virtues of Abu Bakr: his food consisted of Barley bread or Dates; his drink was Water; he preached in a gown that was torn or tattered in twelve places; and a Persian ambassador, who paid his homage as to the conqueror, found him asleep among the beggars on the steps of the mosque of Muslims.”If a dog dies hungry on the banks of the River Euphrates, Umar will be responsible for dereliction of duty.

— (Hazrat Umar Ibnal Khattab)

Neil Berry

"TRANSPARENCY” is a word forever on the lips of British politicians. It was the much-trumpeted motto of Tony Blair, the British prime minister whose conduct proved to be anything but transparent.

What is amazing about the former British Defence Secretary Liam Fox is how little effort he made to conceal his malfeasance, the fact that instead of relying for briefing on civil servants he blatantly recruited a de facto advisor in the person of a friend with his own very specific political and business agenda. Whether from arrogance or naivety, Fox compromised himself in full public view. In a sense indeed, he could hardly have been more transparent.

The Defence Secretary who might now have been boasting about his role in liberating Libya carried to an extreme the zeal for private enterprise epitomized by his political heroine, sometime British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. It was as if Liam Fox was bent on running his own foreign policy. Except that in many ways it was not his policy. For all the signs are that Fox’s friend, Adam Werritty, was a full-time lobbyist on behalf of Washington neoconservatives and the Israeli security services and that by admitting him to the Ministry of Defence Fox was laying the British government wide open to manipulation by advocates of the US and Israel who are also rabid free marketers.

It is true that the official inquiry into his actions found no evidence that British national security was put at risk by Fox’s extraordinary indulgence of his friend. Yet few are likely to feel that the inquiry’s reassurances on this score mean that security was not in fact jeopardized. In any case, it remains a breathtaking circumstance that Adam Werritty ever got near British government, let alone that he established his so-called charity, “Atlantic Bridge”, on government premises and accompanied Fox on official overseas visits, flashing a bogus business card that falsely identified him as a key member of the minister’s staff.

Many questions about the Fox affair remain unanswered, among them how far Fox’s breaches of ministerial protocol may be mirrored in other government departments. Yet much is also clear, not least that financial backers of Atlantic Bridge included Poju Zabludowicz, the billionaire chairman of the Israel propaganda organization, BICOM, as well as its former vice-chairman, Michael Lewis, both of whom have suffered the indignity of being portrayed as shadowy operators, with Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, in his eagerness to distance his government from the Fox imbroglio, apparently indifferent to their discomfiture.

There is, to be sure, nothing new about the exposure of British high politics to Zionist and US neoconservative lobbies. The Labour government of Tony Blair long ago exemplified the sway they were capable of exercising over British policy. Scarcely anybody, however, would have imagined that a major department of British state could be so penetrated by Zionist/neoconservative influence as to raise suspicions of possible subversion. Indeed, publicly at least, few seem prepared to entertain such suspicions even now. There is a perhaps understandable reluctance in the British media and wider public to believe that elected British representatives might be engaged in activities that raise doubts about their true allegiances.

All this is of special concern to British Muslims, since Liam Fox and Adam Werritty were both embroiled in Zionist and neoconservative lobbying which, if vehemently pro-Israel and pro-US foreign policy, is at the same time furiously dedicated to propagandizing against Islam. In the week that saw Fox’s downfall, the monitoring group SpinWatch, in collaboration with the Cordoba Foundation, published a report, The Cold War on British Muslims, that illuminates the extent to which lobbying organizations with anti-Muslim agendas have not only sought to shape British policy and but gained credibility in the mainstream media as non-ideological bodies, public-spirited sources of factual “information”.—AN