The promise of 1994 was waylaid by the demons of inflation, unemployment, sectarianism and terrorism. Continuing failure to cope with a national identity crisis is now propelling us towards a collective nervous breakdown. If sanity is not restored quickly, we should get ready to fasten seat belts in 1995.
Our perceptions of Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif and Altaf Hussain have largely been shaped by the ideas and opinions of the free press. But the press is not infallible. Some of its assessments are partisan or prejudiced.
One major prejudice is that Ms Bhutto’s “intentions vis a vis the opposition have been dishonourable from Day-One of her second term”. Proponents of this view cite several examples: the PPP’s ruthless overthrow of the Sabir Shah government in the NWFP; the instigation of trumped-up ‘victimisation’ cases against several opposition leaders; and Ms Bhutto’s refusal to concede Mr Altaf Hussain’s many demands.
The facts, however, suggest a complex cause-effect situation. In her first three months, Ms Bhutto repeatedly offered a constitutional package for a working relationship between government and opposition. But this was brushed aside by Mr Sharif who seemed determined to destabilise her government come what may. Ms Bhutto countered by covering her flank in the NWFP. The opposition retaliated by launching parliamentary boycotts, street protests and long marches. ‘Victimisation’ inevitably followed. On another front, the PPP effected a compromise with the MQM over the Presidential election. But when Mr Altaf Hussain subsequently upped his demands unreasonably, negotiations broke down. The current doggedness of both sides in Karachi flows from that problematic.
Another prejudice holds Ms Bhutto responsible for all our economic travails, including stagflation. But the fact is that the economy’s growth rate slumped to 2.3 per cent under Nawaz Sharif when reckless mismanagement led to a yawning fiscal deficit, declining reserves and an excessive supply of money. Some of Ms Bhutto’s belt tightening policies are necessary in order to stave off financial collapse.
It is also argued that Ms Bhutto has done nothing for the cause of Kashmir, that the country has been “humiliated” by three “debacles” in Geneva and New York. This is not true. Ms Bhutto has done more than anyone else in Pakistan to “internationalise” the Kashmir conflict. The retreats at Geneva and New York are predicated on the negligence of past regimes and Pakistan’s disagreeable image in the world. Casablanca is a small but significant diplomatic gain under the new regime.
It is also said that Bhutto’s energy policy is either worthless or is a sham designed to revive US imperialist interests in Pakistan. But the fact is that no modern nation can afford to be an island. Even if 10 per cent of the MOUs and LOIs materialise, they will bring more foreign investment into Pakistan in the next four years than in the last four decades. More energy at a high price is surely preferable to less energy at the same high price.
Some people accuse Ms Bhutto of abandoning the nuclear programme, of toying with the third option over Kashmir, of selling out our sovereignty in Gwadur. Such talk deserves to be rubbished.
If the Bhutto regime is more sinned against than sinning, it is important to note its omissions and commissions. Ms Bhutto likes to think that Karachi is a storm in a teacup conjured up by “the gutter press”. Muzzle the press and the problem will go away, she has been advised. Nothing could be further from the truth. Karachi is Bhutto’s Achilles heel. If she doesn’t quickly clean up her Sindh administration and establish a working relationship with the MQM(A), the army will be forced to return to the city in strength and Ms Bhutto will lose her political autonomy.
Islamabad also believes that the mullahs are not a serious threat to government or country because they were only able to muster a miniscule proportion of the vote in the last election. This is misplaced thinking. Running parallel with religious extremism is a strong xenophobic current among many sections of state and civil society. The input of an untarred demagogue into this crucible could trigger an explosion of unimagined intensity and plunge the country into anarchy.
Ms Bhutto claims that her government is clean and transparent. The fact, however, remains that if Nawaz Sharif & Co were stamped as “dacoits”, Benazir Bhutto & Associates could be classified as “burglars”.
It takes two hands to clap. Ms Bhutto was stabbed in the back by Nawaz Sharif and Altaf Hussain in 1989-90. She returned the favour in 1993. She was victimised by them during 1990-93 and given no respite in 1994. The score is more or less even now. It is time to look ahead.
In 1967, Ayub Khan looked very secure. Within a year he was gone. IN 1977, Z A Bhutto said he would rule for another twenty years. Within months, he was out of power. In early 1993, Nawaz Sharif seemed set for another decade. By July, he was banished into the wilderness. Today, Ms Bhutto thinks she is unstoppable….It is time for sober reflection all round.