Of BB, AZ, and NYT: The Corruption of Politics and the Politics of Corruption

http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20010409/benazir.shtml

INDIA TODAY interviews Benazir Bhutto

Exile and Benazir Bhutto are no strangers to each other. Prime minister of Pakistan for two terms, she has also been forced out of Pakistan on two different occasions. First by General Zia-ul-Haq after her father Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto`s execution in 1979, and again since 1998, after her rivalry with former prime minister Nawaz Sharif assumed epic proportions. Sharif himself is today in exile but the military government of General Pervez Musharraf shows no desire to have her return home to Clifton in Karachi.

With husband Asif Zardari languishing in jail on corruption charges, the 49-year-old Benazir shuttles between Dubai

and London. Dubai is where her two children go to school and where she spends time with her ailing mother Nusrat.

But London is where she gets active politically, fulfilling her responsibilities as chairperson of the Pakistan People`s Party (PPP) by telephone and e-mail. In an interview to Aaj Tak, she spoke to INDIA TODAY Editor Prabhu Chawla at her sister Samna`s spacious third floor flat in Queensgate, Kensington.

Q. Do you think you can dethrone Pervez Musharraf?

A. Many generals came and were dethroned-Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, Ayub Khan. Today Musharraf saheb is in power. But ultimately Pakistan as envisioned by Mohammed Ali Jinnah will succeed, which is a democratic Pakistan, a Pakistan in which the poor will be treated with respect.

Q. From its very birth, democracy in Pakistan has suffered. Why? Do politicians there have no credibility?

A. Is it a question of credibility or of a consensus which did not evolve? In India there are serious differences among political leaders but all the groups agree that India should have democracy, an independent election commission, free judiciary and a free press. It is the opposite in Pakistan. For example, when my government was removed undemocratically, no one raised a voice to say the President should not have such powers.

Q. There have been two types of regimes there. One elected, the other comprising the ISI and the army establishment. Is this true?

A. Yes, we have two regimes. One which is visible and the other which is not. This has caused much damage to our country because the political interests of the invisible regime have been opposed to those of the people. This is also why Pakistan broke up. Now it is being said there should be a legal structure for these invisible forces so that they act within the law.

Q. This seems impossible. Nawaz Sharif who had a two-thirds majority and tried to control this invisible regime was dismissed.

A. This is one perception. The other perception is that Sharif was himself the product of the invisible regime. So the majority which he had was not of the people. If a group of democratic parties gets a majority then I think changes can be brought in the structure so that there is a revolution in the country.

Q. Do you think the gun overrules the vote in Pakistan?

A. It has been so until now. But we are fighting to strengthen the politics of vote. This is not easy but if one has conviction and commitment, as the PPP and its supporters have for democracy, then one has to fight.

Q. In the type of jehad being practised there, arms are being used in the name of religion.

A. Religious groups have been given a free hand there. And after the Afghan jehad, a new jehad has started. When I say jehad I mean a political movement. In the Islamic world there are some groups which say that they have to resort to arms to rule over the world. There also are those who say that the meaning of Musalman is you to your own religion and I to my own.

Q. What do you believe in?

A. I believe that Islam is a call for peace, for tolerance.

Q. Do you support border intrusions in the name of Islam?

A. The Kashmir movement is of two types. One is a political movement, which is under the All Party Hurriyat Conference. We support them. The other is of Lashkar-e-Toiba and armed groups. We oppose them.

Q. Do you think that there is any solution to the Kashmir issue in the light of what is going on there?

A. No solution has come up in the past 50 years and it will not come up in the next 50 years if the people of India, Pakistan and Kashmir follow the path they have followed till now. Both countries have their own perceptions. Pakistan says the right to self-determination should be given.

Q. To whom?

A. To the people of Kashmir.

Q. Which Kashmir? Both of them?

A. Pakistan`s intention is that one Kashmir should be given this right. But if you people exert pressure then both Kashmirs can be included.

Q. Do you agree that both Kashmirs should vote on whether they want to live with India or Pakistan?

A. If India proposes this Pakistan will definitely agree.

Q. But the Simla Agreement ...

A. I think you people are not ready for this.

Q. In the Simla Agreement it was decided that we should respect the LOC.

A. It`s the Indian interpretation. Pakistan`s view is that it will be resolved bilaterally. If it fails we will go to the UN.

Q. What do you think of Vajpayee`s peace initiatives?

A. After Rajiv, Vajpayee is the first leader with farsightedness. He has taken some courageous steps. Pakistan is missing out on this window of opportunity.

Q. The UN is not going to interfere in this issue. Can there be an agreement on the LOC?

A. I think India wants the LOC to be made the international border. But Pakistan wants to politically support insurgency so that a referendum is carried out there. There can be no agreement between these opposing views. We should acknowledge there are differing viewpoints. One should undertake confidence building for that.

Q. This has been tried so many times-the Simla Agreement, Atal Bihari Vajpayee`s bus journey, your talks with Rajiv Gandhi, the contents of which are still secret.

A. We talked about Siachen and East Punjab. At that time East Punjab was a big problem for your people.

Q. It is the perception in India that you people were supporting, arming and financing them.

A. There is a perception that you people were doing the same in Karachi. Maybe we were doing that but we should now talk about our differences. We should build confidence for an open border. Then the new generation will distance itself from bloodshed and hatred.

Q. Vajpayee went by bus but what did he get? Kargil, guns ... A. It was wrong. But he was dealing with an undemocratic leadership.

Q. But it was an elected leadership.

A. How? Farooque Leghari established a biased regime and said, ``I will not allow Benazir to come back.`` We felt the 1997 election was a farce and boycotted it. Only 16 per cent of the electorate voted. The Election Commission of Pakistan claimed that 50 per cent had voted. All your newspapers rightly said that 16 per cent voted.

Q. It seems that votes are polled somewhere else in your country.

A. Yes. There are all sorts of rigging. So there was an insecure leadership. It wanted to please India, please the world, please the army. In Lahore, Vajpayee was being felicitated and the army was being told to take positions. General Musharraf said recently he would go anywhere and talk to India. I think if a military ruler says he is ready to talk then you must understand that our people want peace.

Q. You seem to have a lot of faith in General Musharraf.

A. I have differences with him. He has said that he will use the army against me and will stop me.

Q. When you were dismissed the first time, you said Osama bin Laden had been behind the move and that he had spent money.

A. In 1989, there was a no-confidence vote against me. Bin Laden gave $10 million to remove me. During Zia-ul-Haq`s rule the Afghan jehad had started in Pakistan. Madarsas were established and the children of the poor were recruited and promised clothes, etc.

Q. Were you against that?

A. Certainly. Members of the PPP are not allowed to take up arms. Then why should the mullahs be permitted to do so? This dual law goes against the Constitution.

Q. But did you compromise so that continuity was ensured?

A. Certainly. I did try.

Extremely objective and well done. Story applies to South Asia.

Re: Syed Ahmed

Emma Duncan`s book is called Breaking the Curfew. The book has its bit of hyperbole but in general it does make one squirm.

Mr Malik,

You misunderstand me again. Your background
or mine are irrelevant to the argument at hand. The operative word here is not ``you`` or ``I`` but ``we``. What I was trying to allude to, and what you response has clearly indicated, is that we absolve ourselves of all collective responsibility by categorizing ourselves into
``classes`` or groups and laying the blame on the others. Increasing this is drawn along ethnic or linguistic lines. Ema Ducan in her book ( I forget the name) describes this Pakistani phenomenon quite well. No hard feelings Mr Malik....

BG,

Well put. Globalization is indeed an old phenomenon. I would go as far back as
the Neanderthal trying to venture beyond his familiar hunting grounds.
I believe globalization is a synonym for the expansion of human horizons
-both physical and intellectual. And the answers to our problems lie
in breaking new ground and charting new frontiers.

My intent was not to stifle criticism, or to be impervious to imperfections of this current day and age. On the contrary, I was suhggesting that the solutions to a better future, lie not in isolationist dogma, but
the acclamation of the universality of humanity as represented by this current
trend of globalization.

Please donot misconstrue my pathetic attempt at political sarcasm. Bill
Maher I am not. The analogy between politicians and prostitutes was more
a commentary on the character of politicians than a denigration of prostitutes.

Mr Malik,

The problem with Pakistan is that we are not a
nation in the any sense. We have had 50 years, to impropve ourselves, and yet
we have failed , because many of us ( the middle class) have been direct
beneficiaries of the status quo. We decry the inhumanity of feudalism, and
yet we collaborate actively and someitimes passively to sustain it.
It started with the minorities in 53, Dacca in 71, Baluchistan in the late
70`s, Sindh in the 80`s , Karachi in the 90`s. - We do not have moral
legitimacy to pontificate. It is so easy to shift the blame of a zamindar,
in some godforsaken village or to some jackass politician. SO how have
things changed since 1857.... Karachi , perhaps the bastion of the
middle class was indifferent to the plight of its poor & downtrodden
for decades until Edhi stepped in. A similar case can be made for LAhore,
and its health care providers. So who were the feudals in Karachi and
Lahore ? You Mr Malik and I.

Perhaps it was the fedual DC, or the feudal Judge, or the feudal
General, or the feudal government secretary. I am sure the middle class of
Pakistan had all emigrated by 53`. If the feudal classes were instigators
, surely we were the perpetrators.
BG,

Re Syed Ahmed

Globalization is nothing new. It started with the discovery of the not-so new world. The relationships are being renegotiated and manifested in new ways.

It is not a fact that most people are better off than before. Some battles are further along like workers` women`s and human rights, etc. But the material and physical conditions of a many are much worse (lets not even talk about the ones who have been exterminated).

Also, criticism of present day global economic relationships, institutions and processes does not mean that those who criticize them are necessarily idealizing or romanticizing the past. Cant we hope for the present and the future to improve, when there is room for such improvement, without being told you`re better off than before (so keep quiet)? After all, how many people will concede that the world is perfect or close to perfect right now?

This is tangential to the article (i apologize for the transgression) but, regarding your analogy between prostitutes and politicians: the majority of the world`s prostitutes are poor women and children (and there are a smaller number of poor male prostitutes). Many of them are forced or coerced into it actually or structurally. They do not have the same kind of power that politicians do. In fact, they are the ones with less power vis-a-vis their clients. We need to rethink whether it is a `good` or a `bad` word and who is to blame when talk of `prostitution`.

Well put Syed Ahmed, I second many of your thoughts.

At the risk of going off on a tangent, I`d like to add to the Mir Jaffer anecdote, in that Robert Clive (the East India expeditionary force commander) had only 2,900 soldiers. Only 800 of which were europeans. Another 400 were mercinaries from Burma. The remaining were local sepohys on Company payroll. Sirajjuddulla, on the other hand and army of 55,000. He split them in two commands and gave his uncle (Mir Jaffer) command over 30 thousand and retained 25,000 under his personal command. There were French military advisors by his side, as the French and British were at war.

Clive proved to be a better field commander than Sirajjudaula evem at about 11 percent of enemy numeric strength. Uncle Jaffer sat atop the nearby hill, his 30,000 soldiers probably enjoying picnic. This was even worse than Isreal vs Arabs in 1967.

The point you made was valid that could one corrupt Mir have toppled the Empire without internal rot?

The naysayers of globalization, and the
purveryors of historic nostalgia ( much romanticised)
must remember, that the average person is much better off today
in many regards than at any time in human history.
( Most of us are direct beneficiaries of globalization in the post
WW-II era .. immigration, education, technology ...).

Maybe we are taken, by Daadijan`s anecdotal claims of the
blisfful past, wherin dadajan was oblivious to financial
concerns and peope were far more civil and honest. Things
were simple and people were generous. What was not mentioned
was the fact that dadajan was screwing over half the village
to maintain that comfortable lifestyle. So much for the
Western imperialists......

Is Corruption an intrinisc genetic trait
in South asian culture. And if so, why dont the
surviving institutions of The British Raj ( ie the
Armed Forces) have a tender procurement for the
next COAS.

The corporate ethic
does not discern between a commission and a
bribe, because of its profit motive ? . Should we as
shareholders expect our public companies to a higher
moral standard at the expense of my stock price.? * * * * *!

You`re on the money when you point out that globalization is yet another manifestation of economic imperilalism. I am soooo glad there are other people out there who do not embrace globalization as Pakistan`s potential saviour!! And, as you point out, it takes two to bribe - how conveniently NYT glossed over the Swedes` and Citi`s role!

Safwan, your questions were very helpful in bringing the discussion back on track!

You`re on the money when you point out that globalization is yet another manifestation of economic imperilalism. I am soooo glad there are other people out there who do not embrace globalization as Pakistan`s potential saviour!! And, as you point out, it takes two to bribe - how conveniently NYT glossed over the Swedes` and Citi`s role!

Safwan, your questions were very helpful in bringing the discussion back on track!

Well, Sohail, now you have really done it and I guess we are both going to get it from the Momin-police! But I guess we do it because we want to.... as Munir Niazi says in that beutiful Punjabi qata:

Kuch uunj we raahwaaN aukhiaN san
Kuch gall ich gham da touq we see
Kuch shehr they loug we zaalim san
Kuch saanoo maraan da shouq we see

(Yes, the path we tread on was treacherous;
Yes, we had the noose of sorrow around our neck;
Yes, the dwellers of that city were also brutal;
But ultimately it was we ourelves who volunteered for the cross.

I am so glad that Prof Adil has mentioned his disdain about the Mughals and Ottomans.

He writes:
As for the Mughals, I must confess I am not particularly found of them (in fact, I find Aurangzeb to be one of the most dispicable characters
in history and directly responsible for the colonization of India). They were, for most part, ruthless colonists and, in fact, like the
Bristish after them and the multi-nationals now they too used corruption as a tool for colonial expansion. All colonial powers
(including, for example, the Muslims in the Ottomon Empire) have always used corruption as a tool for expansion....

I could not agree more. What I find horrifying is that our people are utterly influenced by the extreme chauvenistic propaganda which is pervasive in our culture. The British, forexample, are bad-mouthed for their ``divide and rule`` policy which enabled them to colonize India, yet the Moors (led by Tariq-bin-Ziad) are glorified, yet they did exactly the same to Spain.

Those who insist that Aurangzeb was a great hero because he performed the ritual of rubbing his forehead to the ground five times a day, are the same sort of people who go and pray on the graveside of general Zina-ul-Haq.

It brings us to the old adage that ``those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.``

A superb response by the author - thanks Adil Najam Sahib. I am glad that I cajoled you to respond to my innocuous sounding queries. Well stated.

I guess the cat is almost out of the bag now - so, taking your cue, let me speak without a veil :=) - you also believe that the answer resides within us and we better stop ``aping`` and start ``doing.`` That the NYT ``liquid-scoop`` is actually meant to justify and trigger certain global-economic forces to come into action - besides absolving the current guardians from any backlash. Gosh, I cant let my mind wander more than that.

I apologize for the structure of my previous response.

To find that what one has written results in a discussion amongst those who read it is normally a good feeling. The feeling, however, becomes less uplifting when one finds that the ensuing discussion has less to do with the content of what was written and more with extraneous issues. Yet, that is the price one pays for stating ones views in the public domain... and it is a price that one pays willingly.

A number of points have been raised by respondents to my commentary on the recent NYT article on corruption by the Bhutto clan. While many of these points have little to do with what I had actually written, it is only fair that I respond to the points that have been raised... I do so, not as much to `defend` my position as to explain it. Amidst all the innuendo and sloganeering of my respondents the real essence of what I had said seems to have been entirely lost; this is somewhat ironic since what I did actually say is likely to be even more controversial for this audience than what I did not say but am being castigated for!

I will organize my response along the main themes that have been raised in this somewhat meandering debate.

PERSONAL COMLIMENTS. A few of the responses have chosen to attack my person rather than the substance of what I have been trying to say. Some are aghast that I use a ``266Mhz Pentium II processor with enhanced MMX technology``--why that should matter one way or the other remains a mystery to me, even though that is not what I use (to be honest I really don`t know, nor care, what the speed of my computer is... I am mature enough now to have lost my infatuation with tinkering toys). Others, are angry because my home in Boston... or is too Brookline... is too comfortable--again, no insight is provided into why that would be important (and by the way, I live in neither of those cities and both materially and emotionally my home in Pakistan when I was working there was far more comfortable than what I have here now). Yet others accuse me of being an ATCD (American Trained Confused Desi)--the only part of that accolade that is factually correct is the one represented by a ``C``, but that was true even when I was in Pakistan. This `zarra nawaazi` from Shair-i-Mashriq and her friends is humbling; however, while I am appreciative of the compliments showered on me I must insist that I am not worthy of them... More than that, I simply refuse to respond to this line of naara baazi on the grounds that I do not want to dignify it with a response.

TAIRA GHAR, MAIRA GHAR: While the attempt to take me on a guilt trip for currently residing in the US would make any proponent of the Sheeda Talli school of politics proud, but I also refuse to take this bait... I do so not only because even as I live here I continue to do as much in Pakistan (in terms of writing, work, and teaching) as I did when I was living there but much more so because I do not want to add further to the insult that has already been inflicted on those who have chosen to live here. The more important issue in this regard concerns the sense that if one chooses (for whatever reasons) to live away from Pakistan one should lose all rights to comment on, care about, or worry over the happenings in one`s country... that sentiment (which I am told is the real ``Desi-Like`` feeling) is an odd one to appear in this forum to which all of us have been attracted primarily because of our feelings (whatever they may be) about Pakistan!

TALK IS CHEAP: No, it is not... and I am a living example of it. It is silence that is cheap. If there is one comment that I resent more than any other it is about talk being cheap and the futility of so-called ``drawing-room chatter``... This only reflects an ignorance of the process of revolutions.... Revolutions do not begin by naara baazi or brick throwing... they begin through thought translated into writing translated into talk... the essence of revolution, contrary of general opinion, is not action it is thought.... and talk is the manifestation of thought... or at least should be. My own feeling is that this notion of ``lets not talk, lets act`` was actually popularized by dictators and authoritarian who recognized the potency of talk and writing and therefore set out a propaganda campaign for discrediting it.... and, of course, we all fell for it! The point to remember about action is that action without thought is meaningless! Moreover, the silliness of implying that to be concerned about the plight of the poor and the downtrodden one has to be necessarily poor and downtrodden oneself has long been exposed by scholars as a fascist ploy for keeping the poor and downtrodden where they are and discrediting those who raise their voice in their name! I hope we are not going to endorse that mistake all over again!

OF MUGHALS AND OF BEING ANTI-WEST: The thread on the Mughals is an interesting one... although also not related to what I was trying to say. Let me just point out that I gave the Mir Jaffar example not necessarily as one of a traitor (he can as easily be thought of as a freedom fighter who wanted to get rid of the tyranny of the Mughals and ended up siding with another set of tyrants) but as an example of how corruption will ALWAYS be rampant in times of colonization and imperialism. As for the Mughals, I must confess I am not particularly found of them (in fact, I find Aurangzeb to be one of the most dispicable characters in history and directly responsible for the colonization of India). They were, for most part, ruthless colonists and, in fact, like the Bristish after them and the multi-nationals now they too used corruption as a tool for colonial expansion. All colonial powers (including, for example, the Muslims in the Ottomon Empire) have always used corruption as a tool for expansion.... that is my real point. My purpose was not to bash the West but to point out that what we are seeing is the expected trajectory of history. A last point on the bit about being `anti-West` is needed.here: Maybe, we who have made the West our new home tend to be so fond of bad-mouthing Pakistan because it helps us rationalize why we are here, but are much less comfortable with structural criticism of the West since that brings into question our decision to live here... I am not sure if it is so or not in reality but it is an interesting hypothesis to think about!

GLOBALIZATION. I am particularly grateful to Safwan Shah for reminding people that the real points I was making are different--and maybe even more controversial. However, Safwan has (I think purposely and mischevously for the sake of igniting discussion) misrepresented all the points that I was trying to make... so let me put things straight just in case anyone wants to further this dialogue:

* * * Safwan thinks that I am saying: 1. Forces of globalization, whick the Chowkwalla`s apparently admire, have made us corrupt?
+++ YES, I am saying that most Chowkwallahs are likely to be fans of globalization but NO, what I am really suggesting is that corruption is a necessary corollary of globalization which is but another form of imperialistic expansion... it is not that WE have been MADE corrupt but that globalization is a corrupting influence for all.... for Zardari as well as CitiBank.

* * *Safwan thinks that I am saying: 2. Genesis of corruption in Pakistan has a strong link with the evolution of prostitution?
+++NO. What I am saying that the genesis of corruption everywhere is similar to the genesis of prostitution everywhere... niether our prostitution nor our corruption is, in fact, particularly `Pakistani`!

* * *Safwan thinks that I am saying: 3. Pakistan is being colonized again because NYT reported facts? (regardless of Chomsky and Manufactured Consent)
+++NOT AT ALL. I did not at all dispute thier facts... I only said that there was nothing in them that we did not already know.... All I said was that it was quite odd that in the facts that the NYT reported the only corrupt looking folks were the Pakistanis and not those who were giving the bribes.

* * *Safwan thinks that I am saying: 4. The ``supply side of corruption`` has not been sufficiently exposed. So, Messrs Dassault and XYZ were equally responsible for making
Zardari corrupt!
+++WRONG AGAIN. I think I have made it abundantly clear what I think about Zardari and his lot in this and prior articles. I have no doubt that he would be corrupt even without Messers Dassault and XYZ. All I am saying is that Mesers Dassault and XYZ are ALSO corrupt and I am voicing my surprise that no one (especially the NYT) ever talks about THEIR corruption.

In a nutshell, all four of these points boil down to the following: If we can prove with undeniable facts that A takes a bribe from B then we can say that A is corrupt.... but we can, and should, also say that B is corrupt. Remember that thing about ``raashi`` and ``murtaashi``... the hand that takes and the hand that gives!


Let me end here because I think I have already given you enough for a next round of Adil-bashing (although I think people have moved on to other discussions and it may be too late for that). However, my only request is that if you do decide to go on another bash-fest then please lets do it on the issues this time rather than on the people. I hope I have not personally offended anyone by this response. If so, I apologize because that was not the purpose.

Thanks

RE: Waheed Malik and CYNIC (Moe??)

As Safwan rightly points out we have indeed digressed. I own up to my share of the guilt and promise to cease and desist. Malik sahib, the (late) Dr. Rabbani you refer to, who was on the faculty of King Edward Medical College, was my father. Unlike him, I neither remained in the country, nor in the profession. However, I must confess, I do have more hedonistic pleasure than I could have had I ``kept the faith`` and not been the ``black sheep``.

Now to Safwan`s very good points.

I only wish to address his last point about whether the Mughal times were any better?

Professor sahib has briefly alluded to that when he mentions East India Company. The period that is relevent to us today is the one referred to as the ``Twilight of the Mughal Empire``. From the death of Aurangzeb, in 1707, to the annexation by the British Crown and the ouster of the nominal Emperor Bahadur Shah II, in 1857. There were no less than SIXTEEN Mughal emperors in this 150 year period. It was a time of weakness, corruption and ineptitude. Those who had the responsibility for governance (local rulers) had no power (money). And those who (i.e. Company bahadur) had the real power (wealth) had no responsibility.

If you spend time in Pakistan (I took four months in 1997 and went to see the ``tamasha``), you notice that the same pattern is re-emerging. The government is bankrupt (financially and morally) and ever-present ``Gobble & Engulf International, Inc.`` calls the real shots. There is the elite who are the local masters, and then there are the ``global interests`` who are the ``masters of the masters``. I think this was part of what professor shaib was trying to point out.

This is a discussion that has digressed in an amazing manner. I am still stuck on some basic issues that the author alluded to - hopefully, he can amplify them further.

1. Forces of globalization, whick the Chowkwalla`s apparently admire, have made us corrupt?
2. Genesis of corruption in Pakistan has a strong link with the evolution of prostitution?
3. Pakistan is being colonized again because NYT reported facts? (regardless of Chomsky and Manufactured Consent)
4. The ``supply side of corruption`` has not been sufficiently exposed. So, Messrs Dassault and XYZ were equally responsible for making Zardari corrupt!

And ...
Athar: You raise an interesting point, ``Frankly, was the Mughal administration any different?`` Hopefully we can explore that further in all its complex manifestations and ramifications. Very astute.

Bottomline, I agree with the author about viewing Western press with cynicism. Perhaps he should have also explored the possibility that this NYT artcile was carried because someone in Pakistan wanted to see it here. Now how far fetched could that be?