Daily Times

The MQM is well advised by the PPP and well-wishers, both inside and outside the party, to disassociate itself from the long march as early as possible because Professor Tahirul Qadri is going to be isolated and exposed sooner rather than later. The resultant sharp-edged criticism will hurt those more who have joined his bandwagon. An overwhelming majority of the political leadership of the country is unanimous in their assessment that he is doing the bidding of ‘others’ for the furtherance of their interests. Mian Nawaz Sharif has castigated the professor for his out of the blue and untimely entry in Pakistani politics, fabricated to derail democracy on the behest of ‘others’. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, chief of JUI, has opposed Dr Tahirul Qadri, who perhaps has been sponsored by ‘foreign powers’ to disrupt the democratic process in Pakistan. Syed Munawar Hassan, chief of the Jamaat-e-Islami, did not endorse Sheikh-ul-Islam’s shenanigan politics either, and was committed to the democratic process. The PML-Q and the PTI, although they support his reforms agenda, have expressed their reluctance to join his long march as it has the potential of overturning the apple cart. The prospects of joining of the leftover parties are diminishing in the face of the assault on the professor’s agenda by the media and civil society. Dr Qadri is likely to come under the spotlight during the days to come in the social media, projecting him in a negative light by quoting his past controversial record.

Professor Tahirul Qadri and the MQM chief Altaf Hussian in their recent statements on very important subjects used expressions uncharacteristic of their stature and following. Professor Qadri said, “I will throw the caretaker government out of the window if set up before January14, 2012.” The MQM chief in his speech after Professor Qadri’s speech in Karachi threatened the media persons to stop their nonsense (bakwaas) against the MQM, failing which his workers’ blessed hands will go for their throats. The professor should have given proposals meant for the proposed caretaker set up, urging it should focus on ensuring the election of genuine representatives of the people through free and fair elections. The MQM chief threatens to dismantle the fourth estate, which is very important, especially in a democratic dispensation. Many will contest the assertion of the MQM chief of unfair treatment by the media because he gets maximum coverage on it. All TV channels telecast his hour-long speeches uninterrupted, without commercial breaks, incurring millions of rupees revenue loss to them, some months back. No other leader has ever been so lucky to get such an exceptional treatment. His complaint may be directed to a few media persons, but even then, he was too harsh and may have been carried away by the flow of oratory as justified by the MQM Senator Tahir Hussain Mashidi when journalists boycotted the proceedings of the Senate in protest.

Professor Qadri and the MQM chief Altaf Hussain are strange bedfellows because the MQM is a secular party, striving for the establishment of a society free of feudals, capitalists, obscurantists and the forces of the status quo. It is the party of the lower middle class, the class that has been ignored by successive governments, if not by design, maybe by default. Civilian governments could not get time due to their early dismissals to focus on the less privileged to put them on the path of upward social mobility, and the dictators did not want to due to the imperatives of perpetuating their rule. Professor Qadri and his party, on the other hand, represent the school of thought pleading to build a social order on the basis of Islamic traditions in the light of his understanding of Islam. It is difficult to see commonality in their ideology and vision to run the affairs of state if elected to rule the country. The question that immediately and inevitably agitates the mind of people is what brought them on a common platform.

Two views are in currency; one points to the domestic factor and the other remotely to the foreign. But the establishment of Pakistan has categorically stated that the army is committed to democracy and has nothing to do with the Dr Qadri factor, according to ISPR, adding that the federal and provincial governments may deal with it as they deem appropriate. It also referred to the army chief’s assurance to the Chief Election Commissioner in which he committed that the army would extend full support to the ECP in holding free, fair and impartial elections. The clarification is indeed timely and was badly required because kite flying was projecting Dr Qadri’s ‘misadventure’ as enjoying the support of powerful quarters. One well-known media personality even predicted: “The establishment has decided to topple the government as it considers that enough is enough and cannot afford further decline of the country’s economy.” Dr Qadri is part of their plan. The haste with which the pro-establishment parties joined with the professor gave credence to the view that the doom and gloom political scenario for the major political parties is round the corner and the postponement of elections is a fait accompli.

But the track record of the incumbent security apparatus vindicates the content of the ISPR press release, which is further reinforced with the emergence of other power centres like the judiciary, media, vibrant civil society and the pro-democracy movement at the global level. Pakistan had the nightmarish experience of successive dictatorships and will not be misguided by elements that are notorious for promoting plans regardless of their incongruity with the national interests. Dr Qadri’s demand for reform of the electoral process is bait and the people are fast discovering it in the perspective of the political history of the country. The media, by and large, is criticising his agenda that may isolate him by the time of his long march to Islamabad. At present, only the MQM is firmly standing with him, and their alignment is fraught with the danger of facing political baggage. The MQM may have to pay very a high price in terms of political standing if the bubble of the ‘melodrama of the long march’ bursts.

The other farfetched view is sponsorship by foreign powers due to their strategic considerations. It is presumed that the US and its allies may have assigned him the task to destabilise the government, paving the way for one of their liking in order to facilitate the achievement of their foreign policy objectives in the region. The superpower, according to defence and political analysts, is not happy with President Zardari and equally uncomfortable with Mian Nawaz Sharif because he exploded atomic devices under his watch. The US perhaps wants a caretaker government of its choice in order to force the future government to take a few important decisions compatible with its strategic interests. What could possibly be the important decisions the defence analysts could visualise? One may be regarding a change in the Afghan policy to facilitate the US extrication from the quagmire of Afghanistan and helping in consolidating the security situation in Afghanistan in the post-withdrawal period. The other may be related to Pakistan’s nuclear programme pertaining to re-processing of nuclear fuel. The third may be related to the Balkanisation of Pakistan.

This is all guesswork, but the statements of a host of national politicians, especially Maulana Fazalur Rehman, on the political situation in Pakistan are thought provoking indeed.

The writer is an advocate and former Federal Secretary Information