By Yasser Latif Hamdani
In a strange twist, the political situation in the subcontinent looks exactly where it was in the 1970s. Then too Pakistan had come out of a dictatorship which had crumbled under the weight of a grave crisis and an immense tragedy. In 1971 it was the fall of Dhaka that had forced Yahya Khan to depart. In 2008, the Lawyer’s Movement and Benazir Bhutto’s martyrdom brought Musharraf down. Then it was Bhutto who replaced Yahya as the president and civil martial law administrator. Today we have Bhutto’s son in law, Mr. Asif Ali Zardari as our president and statesman who is at the head of Pakistan People’s Party. In India it is the same Congress Party and in Bangladesh Awami League has won a landslide. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
It is not a popular thing to say so, but President Zardari proved to be a very impressive operator in 2008. Challenged so soon with a conflict of international proportions, the President has managed to keep India at bay and win unanimous confidence of the world through his adept handling of this crisis. He has so far walked the tightrope well carrying with him a motley crew of ethno-nationalists who had in past been at odds with his own party while also keeping an increasingly bellicose former ally Nawaz Sharif in check. We might have in the President a statesman who is moved by the consideration of how he might be judged by posterity. Indeed he seems hungry to erase his reputation as Mr. 10 percent and reinvent himself instead as a global leader.
But his greatest test will not come from India or war but his own ability to leave behind a lasting legacy: a stable democratic Pakistan based on constitution and rule of law. It may be said that Zardari has managed to take the wind out of the Lawyer’s Movement successfully, but this would be a terrible trap if he is looking for a permanent relevance in Pakistan’s history. A part of me still believes that Zardari will restore Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry one of these days and this author hopes it is sooner than later. But that would not be enough. He must also cut down presidential powers by undoing 58 2 (B) as soon as possible. It might cut down the importance of the office of the President but will help raise Zardari’s own stature manifolds. He must also move decisively towards the vision of Pakistan that Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah had given it: a democratic, liberal and a constitutionally secular Pakistan for increasingly this country stands at the brink of falling into the abyss that is the wrong side of history. At the same time, he needs to fix the civil-military relations in this country which are at its lowest ebb. Pakistan’s armed forces, through their ill-fated sojourns in politics have alienated a large section of society and without a strong and popular national army, Pakistani nationhood is only going to erode. But above all, he must ensure that he does not attach himself to power and quits after his first term in office allowing his party to grow under his able guidance.
Relationship with the US will be another challenge which shall require a masterstroke of diplomacy both domestically and internationally. Zardari understands that Pakistan’s relationship with the US is essential for both our security and economic future. He would do well to ignore those- both on the left and right- who advise the government to take a sterner approach with the US. Here he must realize that elements within Pakistan’s security apparatus will try and foment the anti-American sentiment to bring the PPP government down. It seems that having taken the u-turn on Taliban, this group is not quite ready to take a similar u-turn on its perceived strategic assets that the various Lashkars of the 1990s are imagined by it. It is possible that these Lashkars might be deployed internally to against the PPP government. Zardari must outflank this re-alignment of the security apparatus with rogue elements. Here General Pervez Ashfaq Kiyani will play a pivotal role for the armed forces. He no doubt realizes that the best course of action for the Pakistan Army is to become a bulwark of Pakistan’s constitutional democracy, for only that will sustain Pakistan and without a Pakistan there can be no Army.
The President is lucky to have seasoned politicians from South Punjab like Prime Minister Gilani and Foreign Minister Qureshi at his disposal. He has good counsel in form of Raza Rabbani and Sherry Rahman. His governor in Punjab, Salman Taseer, has proven himself to be a rock in face of PML-N’s right wing storm. Statesmanship, however, calls for Zardari to mend his fences with two of PPP’s oldest warriors Makhdoom Amin Fahim and Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan. As Pakistan moves from crisis to crisis, Zardari will have to call upon these two men sooner than later. With these two men firmly back in his fold, Zardari will finally be able to confront the challenge that Sharif brothers and their cheer leaders in the establishment are predictably going to mount soon. For all of the democratic noise that the Sharif brothers make, they have “repented” for their sins and are likely to be reinstated as the favored option of the right leaning elements within the establishment. PPP is likely to come up against the same forces that thwarted Pakistan’s democratic development in 1954, 1958, 1965, 1970, 1977, 1990, 1996 and 1999. What form it will take remains to be determined.
It is here that the President’s mettle shall be tested. This is the moment that Zardari must seize- both for himself and Pakistan.
Yasser Latif Hamdani is a lawyer based in Islamabad and blogs on hotelmohenjodaro.blogspot.com.




















37 Comments
January 12, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Must be nice to be on the pay roll of Zardari (Mr. 99% now- leave the 1 % for the rest). Which world are your from, don’t mean to disrespect you personally but please dont try to shove trash down our throats just because you know English , can type and maintain a blog. or blah.
He is a true robber and robbing the nation with the rest of his family.
Please give us some more credit than your blah report that he is proving to be a true leader. I mean truly get real.
January 12, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Yasser mian,
Well written. But I have a few reservations about some parts.
Here General Pervez Ashfaq Kiyani will play a pivotal role for the armed forces. He no doubt realizes that the best course of action for the Pakistan Army is to become a bulwark of Pakistan’s constitutional democracy, for only that will sustain Pakistan and without a Pakistan there can be no Army.
Unfortunately this seems more like a fond wish than based on facts. Loads of nations/kingdoms have been destroyed becuase the ruling Bonaparte did not realise what seems to you to be a truism. I am not sure that an entity like Pak Army that has enjoyed huge powers will just give up. Plus, it has huge backers including USA (as Masadi sb will point out), Islamists, conservatives. Remember even Zia and Mushy were reputed to be professionals and manageable people for various reasons. The only circumstance under which the Pak Army can be completely reined in is if either it is completely destroyed in battle or if people esp in Punjab completely and irreversibly turn against military interference in state affairs. As to whether this is a reality you wud know better.
Regards
January 12, 2009 at 4:06 pm
YLH,
What is meant by “keeping India at bay?”.
When has India been aggressive that it needs to be kept at bay? India has been exceptionally tolerant about the terrorist training camps that are operating in Pakistan.
I have not understood also the tightrope he has walked. He has completely surrendered to the Taliban and other terrorists.
It sounds harsh, and totally opposite to what you have stated, but think about it.
January 12, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Couldn’t agree more with “Shocked”
I couldn’t read more than the first paragraph.
Wake up Yasser saab! Zardari is a jackass of a leader: Totally stupid, myopic, self-centered and self-destructing.
January 12, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Pakistan’s richest list:
1 – Mian Muhammad Mansha Yaha Pakistan
Ranking: 1 Worth: £1.25b ($2.5billion)Industry: Businessman
Mansha has around 40 companies on board. Mansha, who owns the Muslim Commercial Bank is also setting up a $ 17m paper mill. He is one of the richest Pakistanis around. Nishat Group was country’s 15th richest family in 1970, 6th in 1990 and Number 1 in 1997. Mansha is on the board of nearly 50 companies. He is deemed to have made investments in many bourses, currency and metal exchanges both within and outside Pakistan. He could have bought the United Bank too, but then who doesn’t have adversaries. Nishat Group comprises of textiles, cement, leasing, insurance and management companies. If Mansha was bitten by Bhutto’s nationalization stint of 1970, his friends think he was compensated by Nawaz Sharif’s denationalization programme to a very good effect. There is no stopping Mansha and he is still on the move.
Nishat group assets are $4.4Billion. He is sometimes even regarded as the richest Pakistani around by his friends claiming he does not “show it off”.
2 – Asif Ali Zardari Pakistan
Ranking: 2 Worth: £900m ($1.8billion) Industry: Politics
Asif Zardari dubbed “Mr 10%” an unknown happy-go-lucky son of a small-time businessman who struck gold by marrying one of the worlds most glamorous women Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Benzair Bhutto. Taking advantage of his wife’s authority he is known to have taken kickbacks from many deals inside and outside of Pakistan. The most famous was a $4 billion deal to buy 32 Mirage jets from the French company Dassault. Documents, which include letters from Dassault executives, indicate an agreement was reached to pay a 5% “remuneration” – about $200m – to Marleton Business, a BVI company controlled by Zardari. Besides these many more kickback deals were taken with companies such as ARY Gold, Société Général de Surveillance (SGS), Cotecna, and ZPC Ursus, a Polish tractor company.
Zardari assets holding amount into hundreds of millions of dollars easily, Having 8 prime properties in the UK, of which once is the famous Rockwood Estate 365 acres in Surrey, worth £4.35m has now been sold and money sent back to the Govt. of Pakistan. Also 14 multi-million dollar mansions in the USA, including owning Holiday Inn hotel Houston, Texas Owned by “Mr 10%“ and Iqbal Memon and Sadar-ud-Din Hashwani.
They (Zardari and B.Bhutto) also have huge business ventures in the Middle East running into hundreds of millions if not billion mark. Mr Zardari also has huge stakes in sugar mills all over Pakistan,which include: Sakrand Sugar Mills, Nawabshah, Ansari Sugar Mills, Hyderabad, Mirza Sugar Mills, Badin, Pangrio Sugar Mills, Thatta and Bachani Sugar Mills, Sanghar.
3 – Sir Anwar Pervaiz UK
Ranking: 3 Worth: £750m ($1.5billion) Industry: Businessman
Chairman of Bestway Group. The Bestway Group started in 1976 with its first Bestway cash and carry warehouse opened in London. Today the have in total around 50 Cash and Carry’s. Including their recent takeover of rival group Batleys for around £100m. Bestway Group ventured into Pakistan’s huge the cement business in 1995 and set up cement manufacturing plant in Pakistan at a cost of $120 million.
Taking Advantage of Pakistan growing economy they also acquired a 25.5% stake in United Bank Limited in 2002. Today, the Bestway Group has interests in cash & carry wholesale, property investments, retail outlets, milling of rice, lentils and pulses, cement production and more recently into banking. The group’s total sales amounted to in excess of £ 2 billion. The group provides direct employment to thousands in the UK and Pakistan. The have many interests in Pakistan too. Sir Anwar Pervaiz and his his partners sheer hard work has bought them to outstanding international levels, which definitely makes him an ideal role model for many young Pakistanis today. He still on the move!
4 – Nawaz Sharif & Shahbaz Sharif family Saudi Arabia/Pakistan
Ranking: 4 Worth: £700m ($1.4billion) Industry: Politics/Businessman
Mr Sharif Businessman turned politician the former Prime Minister of Pakistan. He was ousted in a military coup in 1999 and was forced to forfeit $9million dollars and some of his assets including his $5m Mansion is Raiwind near Lahore. Before becoming PM he was a major share holder along with his brother and cousins of Ittefaq Group, having assets well in excess of £50m in the 90’s. However he got richer when he took commissions from foreign companies for construction in Pakistan. He build the first motorway and many new roads and took heavy kickbacks. He then also stole $100m from the Iqra funds, he started a new scheme “Ghar Apna” in which he again looted around $40m, the “Mulk swaaro” scheme involving public & govt. money collections to help pay pf Pakistan’s debts also was pocketed. Today he lives in exile in Saudi Arabia where it is known he has a new huge business empire in various sectors.
January 12, 2009 at 7:42 pm
YLH,
I usually agree with your views…but here I just cannot. The man is not fit to be a clerk let alone be the president. I don’t agree that they have handled well the situation with India – they have been able to aggression but they have made a complete fool out of themselves and of the country. Just recently, the Durrani episode is one case in point.
Milind, if this is not what you call aggressive, what has India been?
January 13, 2009 at 4:38 am
India has never carried out strikes on any terrorist training camp in Pakistan.
India never liquidated any wanted criminal in Pakistan.
Contrast this with how many other countries behave. You will find that India is yet trying to achieve things peacefully.
January 13, 2009 at 4:51 am
“It is not a popular thing to say so, but President Zardari proved to be a very impressive operator in 2008. Challenged so soon with a conflict of international proportions, the President has managed to keep India at bay and win unanimous confidence of the world through his adept handling of this crisis.”
YLH,hard to associate ‘impressive operator’, ‘unanimous confidence’and ‘adept handling’ with Zardari…..the only time he was an impressive operator was when he was milking Pakistan as the Mr.10% spouse of the late Benazir!!
“India at bay” also a wrong choice of words.You keep the aggressor at bay not the one that has been sinned against.
On second thoughts it may be that the circumstances are just making a bad apple look great….from an outside perspective this civilian governmentis looking very confused and ineffective,especially because of the contradictions between PM and President.
January 13, 2009 at 5:35 am
I stick by my usage of the phrase “India at bay”.
The war rhetoric from India does make it an aggressor… whether or not the grievance is genuine and Mumbai is a genuine grievance.
But there are other genuine grievances as well … like Kashmir … would you say that because Kashmiris have been sinned against, militants are not militants?
What next? Israel is not the aggressor because Hamas sinned against it?
January 13, 2009 at 6:33 am
YLH is biting more than he can chew…
January 13, 2009 at 6:35 am
“India has never carried out strikes on any terrorist training camp in Pakistan.
India never liquidated any wanted criminal in Pakistan.”
Yes. But that is because it can’t. Lets be very clear about this.
January 13, 2009 at 6:51 am
and everybody knows who runs pakistan…its not zardari/gilani…take a guess?
January 13, 2009 at 6:53 am
ahh…too much confidence is dangerous…your country is a failed state…living on alms from international community. (rassi jal gayi lekin ainth nahi gaya)
January 13, 2009 at 8:43 am
On 22nd october 2008 India launched chandrayaan,Indias lunar mission quite succesfully.In an interview after that G.Madhavan Nair,talked about a manned mission in the next 3 years,and a mission to moon by 2012.I am not good at geography,but i presume that pakistan is not farther than moon or mars.
January 13, 2009 at 8:58 am
YLH do not talk of Israel and India together.There are no similarities.
The reality remains that the Pakistani state has been engaged in a lot of mischief on Indian soil and this goes way beyond the usual shenangians that states usually do in each others territories.What do you expect India (or any state in that position) to do? Kargil was Mushy’s work and this one( Mumbai) is actually more sisnister than Kargil.A state has to warn the attacking side.It may look as war mongering on your side but it is still more mature than Mushy’s”Hum choodiyan pehen ke nahin baithe” type of rhetoric.
January 13, 2009 at 9:03 am
YLH,
It is not really true that India can’t ‘48, ‘65 and ‘71 demonstrated that it can.
However, we do want to work out a peaceful solution. It is in everybody’s interest.
January 13, 2009 at 11:00 am
Milind babu,
To the best of my knowledeg there were no nukes in ‘48, ‘65 or ‘71.
Regards
January 13, 2009 at 12:06 pm
that nuke line can not go on for ever, the facade over which pakistan can hide and continue his nefarious designs…
January 13, 2009 at 12:07 pm
an interesting article:
Let’s Buy Pakistan’s Nukes
By BRET STEPHENS
Every visitor to Pakistan has seen them: 20-foot tall roadside replicas of a remote mountain where, a decade ago, Pakistan conducted its first overt nuclear tests. This is what the country’s leaders — military, secular, Islamist — consider their greatest achievement.
AP
A model of Chaghi mountain, the site of Pakistan’s nuclear test.
So here’s a modest proposal: Let’s buy their arsenal.
A.Q. Khan, father of Pakistan’s nuclear program (and midwife to a few others), likes to point out what a feat it was that a country “where we can’t even make a bicycle chain” could succeed at such an immense technological task. He exaggerates somewhat: Pakistan got its bomb largely through a combination of industrial theft, systematic violation of Western export controls, and a blueprint of a weapon courtesy of Beijing.
Still, give Mr. Khan this: Thanks partly to his efforts, a country that has impoverished the great mass of its own people, corruptly enriched a tiny handful of elites, served as a base of terrorism against its neighbors, lost control of its intelligence services, radicalized untold numbers of Muslims in its madrassas, handed the presidency to a man known as Mr. 10%, and proliferated nuclear technology to Libya and Iran (among others) has, nevertheless, made itself a power to be reckoned with. Congratulations.
But if Pakistanis thought a bomb would be a net national asset, they miscalculated. Yes, Islamabad gained parity with its adversaries in New Delhi, gained prestige in the Muslim world, and gained a day of national pride, celebrated every May 28.
What Pakistan didn’t gain was greater security. “The most significant reality was that the bomb promoted a culture of violence which . . . acquired the form of a monster with innumerable heads of terror,” wrote Pakistani nuclear physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy earlier this year. “Because of this bomb, we can definitely destroy India and be destroyed in its response. But its function is limited to this.”
In 2007, some 1,500 Pakistani civilians were killed in terrorist attacks. None of those attacks were perpetrated by India or any other country against which Pakistan’s warheads could be targeted, unless it aimed at itself. But Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal has made it an inviting target for the jihadists who blew up Islamabad’s Marriott hotel in September and would gladly blow up the rest of the capital as a prelude to taking it over.
The day that happens may not be so very far off. President Asif Ali Zardari was recently in the U.S. asking for $100 billion to stave off economic collapse. So far, the international community has ponied up about $15 billion. That puts Mr. Zardari $85 billion shy of his fund-raising target. Meantime, the average Taliban foot soldier brings home monthly wages that are 30% higher than uniformed Pakistani security personnel.
Preventing the disintegration of Pakistan, perhaps in the wake of a war with India (how much restraint will New Delhi show after the next Mumbai-style atrocity?), will be the Obama administration’s most urgent foreign-policy challenge. Since Mr. Obama has already committed a trillion or so in new domestic spending, what’s $100 billion in the cause of saving the world?
Today in Opinion Journal
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Barack Obama-sanCondi’s Korean FailureThe Sole of Liberation
TODAY’S COLUMNISTS
Global View: Let’s Buy Pakistan’s Nukes
– Bret StephensMain Street: Gitmo Lawyers Are the Latest in Radical Chic
– William McGurn
COMMENTARY
The Return of Realpolitik in Arabia
– Fouad AjamiThe Lessons From 30 Years of Chinese Reform
– Hugo RestallHow Blackwater Serves America
– Erik D. PrinceBankruptcy Is the Perfect Remedy for Detroit
– Todd J. ZywickiThis is the deal I have in mind. The government of Pakistan would verifiably eliminate its entire nuclear stockpile and the industrial base that sustains it. In exchange, the U.S. and other Western donors would agree to a $100 billion economic package, administered by an independent authority and disbursed over 10 years, on condition that Pakistan remain a democratic and secular state (no military rulers; no Sharia law). It would supplement that package with military aid similar to what the U.S. provides Israel: F-35 fighters, M-1 tanks, Apache helicopters. The U.S. would also extend its nuclear umbrella to Pakistan, just as Hillary Clinton now proposes to do for Israel.
A pipe dream? Not necessarily. People forget that the world has subtracted more nuclear powers over the past two decades than it has added: Kazakhstan, Belarus, Ukraine and South Africa all voluntarily relinquished their stockpiles in the 1990s. Libya did away with its program in 2003 when Moammar Gadhafi concluded that a bomb would be a net liability, and that he had more to gain by coming to terms with the West.
There’s no compelling reason Mr. Zardari and his military brass shouldn’t reach the same conclusion, assuming excellent terms and desperate circumstances. Sure, a large segment of Pakistanis will never agree. Others, who have subsisted on a diet of leaves and grass so Pakistan could have its bomb, might take a more pragmatic view.
The tragedy of Pakistan is that it remains a country that can’t do the basics, like make a bicycle chain. If what its leaders want is prestige, prosperity and lasting security, they could start by creating an economy that can make one — while unlearning how to make the bomb.
January 13, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Alok,
That is not a bad idea. USA should give Pak an offer:
Money- dollops of it.
Security against Indian aggression.
In return,
Pak dismantles its nuclear infrastructure and terror infrastructure
Pak would be well advised to take the offer.
Regards
January 13, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Majumdar Moshai,
If India did what it did without nukes, think of wht it could WITH.
Yet, India doesn’t. It believes in peace.
January 13, 2009 at 12:55 pm
71 was qualitatively different because Pakistan was in a civil war situation.
However 65’s stalemate as well as Kargil episode demonstrated that neither countries have offensive capabilities which can dislodge entrenched defences of the other.
India does not because it cannot.
January 13, 2009 at 12:59 pm
majumdar,
As much I love the Americans… American guarantees for security against India have been futile at best…
We will keep the nuclear stockpile at all costs. I once bought into the sissy-pinko-liberal thesis that “nukes are bad”… recent experiences show that nukes are a necessary evil.
January 13, 2009 at 3:34 pm
it is not you who decides if you get to keep the nuclear stock pile, who knows your Mr 10% may agree with a 20% commission.
January 13, 2009 at 5:35 pm
the nationality of kasab is beyond question.what about the other 9.any progress on that
January 14, 2009 at 4:33 am
On the contrary my dear friend, it is precisely the people of Pakistan who will not allow the nukes to be sold off in such fashion.
January 14, 2009 at 4:47 am
Milind babu,
If India did what it did without nukes, think of wht it could WITH.
A small detail may have escaped your notice. Pakis have nukes too.
Yasser mian/Aisha boudi,
Actually given the differential treatment meted out to North Korea and Iraq, retaining the nukes may not be a bad idea.
There is of course an alternative. Pak denukes, forgets Kashmir and practically accepts US sovereignty. And goes on to become another Japan/Korea. But Pakistanis being a ghairatmand people, they may not find this very palatable.
Regards
January 14, 2009 at 4:58 am
There is a difference here. Unlike the axis of evil… Pakistan has never had crazy stalinist dictators – North Korea and Iraq- nor has Pakistan ever been run by a Mullah council that screams marg bar amrika as in the case of Iran.
Even in periods of Military rule, Pakistan has maintained some semblance of representative rule through a parliament… and as such Pakistan is a democracy- however flawed and weak- and has a civilian set up in charge.
January 14, 2009 at 5:14 am
Yasser mian,
My point was North Korea has nukes (but no oil) so no one invades it, Iraq has no nukes but oil so got run over.
Regards
January 14, 2009 at 5:15 am
Ofcourse… we might reconsider the offer if it was:
1 trillion dollars. 300 billion in state of the art weapon systems including patriot missles, F-35s and F-22s. US $ 400 billion on education and health systems…. including the opening of regional campuses of Harvard, Yale, Cal Tech, Princeton, MIT, Wharton etc. 300 Billion in form of Foreign direct investment by Americans in Pakistan.
Anything less than that… and we have no deal.
Also… whether we decide to be secular or Islamic should be of no business of the US… we would ofcourse undertake that human rights are fully protected.
January 14, 2009 at 5:26 am
Yasser mian,
I guess MAJ (pbuh) had asked for around USD 10 bn in 1947. Adjusted for inflation, USD 1 Tn would be the right amount. Dunno whether USA has that kind of money though.
whether we decide to be secular or Islamic should be of no business of the US…
That is only fair.
Regards
January 14, 2009 at 5:28 am
Yasser mian,
Ofcourse… we might reconsider the offer if it was:
It reminds me of a joke (I belive it was GB Shaw)
A guy goes upto a lady and says “Will you sleep with me for a million bucks”
Lady says “Yes”
Guy “OK, wud you sleep with me for ten bucks”
Lady, furious “What kind of woman do you think I am”
Guy: “I already know that. Was just haggling over the price”
Regards
January 14, 2009 at 6:42 am
majumdar da: ha ha ha! below the belt man!
January 15, 2009 at 12:26 pm
YHL,
did I just see the word ’sissy’ in one of your responses. And I was just reading another post where you were doing your best to claim that you stood up for the cause of sexual minorities.
January 18, 2009 at 6:17 am
Well…Thats great….far far away from the stereotype….
January 19, 2009 at 9:30 am
Freethinker aka Akram,
Like I pointed out… sexuality is a personal issue. Most homosexuals are not sissies and that is just a stereotype…
But lets imagine for a second that was the case. Every time you use the phrase “it is not black and white”… should I call you racist ?
Seriously grow up.
January 19, 2009 at 11:31 am
bloody sexist joke majumdar… shame on you! for being so sexist… you bloody gay-baiting sexist right-winger!