THE SPREADING REVOLT IN TIBET

B.RAMAN

The Chinese media has been silent on the situation in Tibet. In their daily briefings, spokespersons of the Chinese Foreign Office have admitted some protest demonstrations by the Buddhist monks in Lhasa, but have played down the gravity of the situation and have projected it as under control.

2. The only details to the contrary are coming from the CIA-funded Radio Free Asia, foreign diplomats in Beijing, foreign tourists caught up in Tibet, the offices of the Dalai Lama in different parts of the world and the Tibetan diaspora in India and the West. The Chinese have not yet been able to block the Internet as effectively as the Myanmar military junta did when the monks and students staged protest demonstrations in Myanmar last year. As a result, one has been able to get a regular flow of information till the time of writing of this article (10 PM Indian Standard Time on March 14,2008).

3. After allowing for some exaggeration and rumour-mongering in these reports, it is clear that the Chinese military are facing a revolt in Tibet the like of which Tibet has not seen since the Khampa revolt of the 1950s, which was ultimately crushed by the military. Initially, the trouble started with slogan-shouting demonstrations by the monks of three monasteries in Lhasa. They were peaceful and avoided violence. Repeated attempts by them to march in procession were prevented by the police----initially with the use of batons only and subsequently by using tear smoke. On the first three days (March 10,11 and 12), the protests were confined to the monks, with the general population showing little interest.

4. From March 13,2008, sections of the general population of Lhasa, particularly the youth, have joined the protests. Some have been demonstrating on their own separately. Some have joined the demonstrating monks. After the youth came out into the streets, the demonstrations took an increasingly violent turn with targeted attacks on members of the Chinese security forces and Han settlers from outside Tibet. Some Tibetans, who were working for the Government, have deserted their posts and joined the demonstrators. Some Tibetans working in the Police have also deserted their jobs and joined the demonstrations.

5. While the Lhasa Police, which has a mix of Hans and Tibetans, kept its cool and avoided using excessive force, Chinese army units, which consist mostly of Hans, lost their cool and opened fire on the demonstrators twice, resulting in at least two deaths. This infuriated the local people. More Tibetans joined the demonstrations and set fire to at least three military vehicles.

6. Initially, the monks were merely shouting slogans praising the Dalai Lama and calling for the independence of Tibet. The youth, who joined subsequently, shouted slogans against the railway line to Lhasa alleging that it was constructed with forced Tibetan labour and that many of them were killed during the construction. They were also demanding the release of the Panchen Lama designated by the Dalai Lama in accordance with the Tibetan traditions. He has been arrested by the Chinese authorities and replaced by a nominee of the Communist Party.

7. Most of the demonstrators have left the streets at the time of the writing of this report. Lhasa is relatively calm and the streets are deserted but for the security forces, who are patrolling intensely.It remains to be seen whether they demonstrate again tomorrow.

8. News of the firing incidents in Lhasa and the deaths have resulted in protest demonstrations in the rural areas too. The trouble is spreading from Lhasa to the interior areas.

9. The Chinese have been totally taken by surprise and highly embarrassed. During the last one year or more, they had sponsored the visits of many foreign journalists, including from India, to Tibet by the newly-constructed railway line. Some of these journalists duly impressed by what they were shown painted an idyllic picture of Tibet under the Chinese rule.

10. The Chinese authorities are reportedly worried that similar demonstrations might break out in the Xinjiang region, where the security forces have been put on stand-by alert.

11. In the meanwhile, elements identified with the Falun Gong have been spreading allegations that the infrastructure for the Olympics in Beijing were constructed with forced labour brought from the interior provinces and that many of them died in accidents and due to the harsh winter. They are trying to stir up demonstrations by these workers and their relatives in Beijing.

LATEST: THE CHINESE SEEM TO HAVE BLOCKED THE INTERNET IN TIBET EFFECTIVELY. TIBET IS CUT OFF FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD. (13-3-08, 11-30 pm IST)

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies. E-Mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

THE PRE-OLYMPICS GREAT GAME

B.RAMAN

"The Chinese were also worried that if the saffron revolution succeeded in Myanmar, it could next spread to Tibet........Sections of Burmese political exiles have been advocating that the US should also use the Beijing Olympics for keeping up pressure on China to make the Junta change its policies. Non-governmental elements in the US and West Europe have already been linking the human rights issue in Darfur in the Sudan and Tibet to the Olympics. They want that the issue of Chinese support to the Myanmar Junta should also be linked. They feel that while a call for the boycott of the Olympics by the participating Western countries would not work, a call for the boycott of the Olympics by the Western media in protest against Chinese policies in respect of Darfur, Tibet and Myanmar might. They want that even if the Western media is disinclined to boycott the Olympics, it could at least down-grade the coverage of the Olympics. These Myanmar exiles are also considering the issue of an appeal to foreign tourists not to go to Beijing to watch the games."

Extract from my article dated December 5,2007, at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers25/paper2489.html
----------------------------------------------------

Intelligence agencies in China, India, Nepal and other countries seem to have been taken by surprise by the simultaneous protests launched by Tibetans, not only in India, Nepal and the rest of the world wherever there is a Tibetan diaspora, but also in Tibet itself over the continued violation of the human rights of the Tibetans by China. The protest demonstrations broke out on the 49th anniversary of the collapse of the Khampa revolt on March 10,1959, which resulted in the flight of the Dalai Lama to India from Tibet.

2.One of the objectives of the demonstrators is to draw attention to the human rights situation in Tibet as the organisers of the Beijing Olympics are getting ready for taking the Olympic flame from Athens across the countries on the ancient Silk Route. The flame is scheduled to pass through Islamabad and New Delhi on April 16 and 17,2008. The Chinese also propose to take it to the top of the Mount Everest to highlight their professed pacification of Tibet and its economic and social development. The Tibetans are determined to disprove Chinese claims of having pacified Tibet by organising a series of demonstrations and protest rallies all over the world in the period preceding the Olympics.

3. While some form of Tibetan activism in the months preceding the Olympics was expected and the Chinese were mentally prepared for it, the widespread manifestations of this activism has been a matter of surprise. Of greater surprise and concern to the Chinese was the outbreak of demonstrations and rallies by Tibetan monks in Lhasa, who have been out in the streets for the last three days, trying to march to the old Potala Palace of the Dalai Lama. The Chinese Police have repeatedly used tear gas to prevent their march. The demonstrations by the monks and others in Lhasa----synchronised with the demonstrations in other countries, where there is a Tibetan diaspora, including India--- indicate strongly that these demonstrations are only partly spontaneous. There is also an element of orchestration by the Tibetans abroad with the help of the human rights groups in the West, which have been wanting to use Tibet as one of the issues to beat the Chinese with in the year of the Olympics.

4. Interestingly, the news of the demonstrations in Lhasa was first broken by Radio Free Asia, the CIA-funded radio station, which was started under the Clinton Administration, to use against China, North Korea and Myanmar PSYWAR methods similar to those used against the USSR and other Communist countries of East Europe by the CIA-funded Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty in Munich. After the collapse of the Communist regimes in East Europe, Radio Free Europe started functioning in Asia under the name Radio Free Asia. Radio Liberty was shifted to Prague to carry on PSYWAR against Russia and Iran. While Radio Liberty played an active role in fomenting anti-Russia agitations in Ukraine, it has not been that successful against Iran so far. Radio Free Asia, which provided PSYWAR support to the monks and students of Myanmar during their agitation against the miluitary junta last year, is now providing similar PSYWAR support to the Tibetans agitating in Tibet and elsewhere.

5. In India, the response to this campaign has taken the form of an announced march by a group of about 100 Tibetans from Dharamsala, the headquarters of the Dalai Lama, to Tibet. The Government of India has done well to ban this march, but despite this, the Tibetans are likely to create difficulties during the passage of the Olympic flame through Delhi. The Chinese were originally planning to invite some foreign tourists to Tibet to witness the flame being carried to the top of the Everest, but they have now given up the idea and banned the visit of foreign tourists to the foothills of the Everest on their side till the flame was taken up and brought back and taken out of Tibet by Chinese mountaineers.

6. I have been a strong critic of the Govt. of India's recognising Tibet as an integral part of China without insisting on a quid pro quo in the form of the Chinese recognising Arunachal Pradesh as an integral part of India. I have been a great admirer of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans and a supporter of their human rights. I have also been a strong critic of the Chinese action in imprisoning the Panchen Lama duly appointed by the Dalai Lama in accordance with the Tibetan traditions and replacing him with a bogus Panchen Lama named by the Communist Party. At the same time, I have been of the view that we should not do anything, which might create even the slighest suspicion that our Tibetan policy is influenced by US ideas and machinations. It should be our policy influenced solely by our interests and not by US interests.
7.There is a complex Great Game on the horizon as the Beijing Olympics approach. While the US State Department has toned down the criticism of the human rights situation in China in its annual report on the State of Human Rights in the world, the non-Governmental organisations in the US have stepped up their demonisation of China on this issue. If the US is prepared to use the Olympics card against China, Beijing is prepared to play the North Korean nuclear card and the Myanmar card against the US. After being co-operative in the six-party talks on the nuclear issue, Noth Korea has changed gears and is delaying the fulfillment of its commitment to share information about its nuclear capabilities. After showing some flexibility last year and receptivity to international concerns, the military junta in Myanmar is again back to its old game of rejecting international concerns with scorn. North Korea and Myanmar would not have reverted back to their rigid positions without a nod from Beijing. China feels its policy activism on North Korea and Myanmar to meet US concerns has not had a quid pro quo from the US in the form of discouraging the attempts mounted from US soil to politicise the Games and create an embarrassment for the Chinese leadership not only in the eyes of the international community, but also in the eyes of its own people.

8. India should keep out of this Great Game. The Olympic Games has been a matter of intense national pride for the Chinese people. We should refrain from any action which might hurt their pride. The Dalai Lama must be advised to cool it and not to give the impression of letting himself be used by anti-China elements in the US. The Tibetans should not be allowed to disrupt the passage of the Olympic flame through New Delhi. (13-3-08)

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariatr, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

PAKISTAN: COMING TO TERMS WITH REALITY

B.RAMAN

Mr.Asif Ali Zardari, the acting Chairman of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), and Mr.Nawaz Sharif, former Prime Minister and President of the main faction of the Pakistan Muslim League called PML (N), signed on March 9,2008, an important power-sharing agreement to pave the way for the formation of coalition governments at the centre in Islamabad and in Punjab.

2. Under this agreement, while the PPP would head the Government at the Centre with the PML (N) joining it as an equal partner, the PML (N) would head the provincial Government in Punjab with the PPP joining it as an equal partner.

3.Till March 9, Nawaz was imposing two conditions for joining the coalition at the centre. The first was that his representatives in the Cabinet would not agree to be sworn in by President Pervez Musharraf, whom they regarded as illegally holding the office of the President. As a way out, it was being suggested by them that Musharraf could go on pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia and that , during his absence, Mohammedmian Soomro, the Chairman of the Senate, who will be the acting President, can swear in the Cabinet.

4. The second condition being imposed by Nawaz was that there should be a prior commitment by Zardari that former Chief Justice Iftikar Mohammad Chaudhury and other judges sacked by Musharraf after imposing a State of Emergency on November 3,2007, would be reinstated. Zardari was disinclined to accept this suggestion. Instead, he was suggesting that the matter should be left to the collective wisdom of the Parliament to decide.

5. The agreement signed on March 9,2008, marks a climb-down by Nawaz on both these issues. He is now agreeable to letting his party's Ministers in the central Cabinet being sworn in by Musharraf. He has agreed that the new Parliament would pass a resolution, within 30 days of the new Government assuming office, calling for the reinstatement of the sacked Chief Justice and Judges.

6. A resolution does not mean that the sacked judges would be automatically re-instated. All it means is that the PPP Prime Minister would, on the basis of the resolution, recommend to Musharraf the re-instatement of the sacked judges. Nothing can be done against Musharraf if he chooses to ignore the recommendation or rejects it. The Senate, the upper House of the Parliament, was constituted by Musharraf in 2003. His supporters control it. Six of his supporters belonging to the PML (Qaide Azam), his creation, have defected and formed their own bloc, which would support PML (N). Despite their desertion, Musharraf's supporters still control the Senate for which fresh elections are due only in 2009. Unless there are more desertions from the ranks of Musharraf's supporters in the Senate, Musharraf cannot be removed by impeachment. The Constitution of 1973 clearly lays down that for impeachment to take effect, the resolution recommending it should be passed by the two Houses of the Parliament sitting together in a joint session, with more than two-thirds of the total membership of the two Houses voting for it.

7. The opponents of Musharraf do not have the numbers in favour of impeachment till now. The only option left to Nawaz in these circumstances is to keep humiliating Musharraf in the hope that he would himself get disgusted and quit. Musharraf, the commando that he is, is determined to fight it out for as long as he can.

8. Analyses by many analysts in Pakistan as well as in India and other countries that Gen.Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, the Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), has started asserting himelf and marking his distance from Musharraf added to the rigidity of Nawaz. These analyses were based on the fact that before the elections of February 18,2008, Kiyani had issued a circular forbidding his officers from having any contacts with political leaders and that he had started withdrawing from civilian departments serving military officers working there. These analyses had overlooked the fact that such circulars were routine and had had been issued periodically even by the predecessors of Kiyani, including by Musharraf himself. One might recall that Musharraf, as the COAS under Nawaz before October,1999, had forced his Corps Commander in Quetta to retire prematurely because he had called on Nawaz, the then Prime Minister, without his permission and had not informed him about the meeting after it had taken place.

9. Similarly, there was nothing new or significant in Kiyani's action in withdrawing many serving military officers from the civilian departments. Musharraf himself had sent back to the Army on his own serving military officers working in the Presidential Secretariat after he had shed his dual charge as the COAS and become a civilian President. The civilian Government, which would come to power after the elections, would have ordered the serving military officers in the civilian departments to go back to the Army. Kiyani had merely avoided an embarrassing situation for himself by anticipating this and recalling them back. The largest single group (about 50) of serving officers recalled was working in the offices of the Accountability Bureau and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), which were looking into charges of corruption against Benazir Bhutto, Zardari, Nawaz and other political leaders. It would have been embarrassing for these officers to continue to perform such duties after the elections. Moreover, many of the corruption investigations were discontinued under the understanding reached by Musharraf with Benazir for a political reconciliation. These analysts did not notice that Kiyani did not withdraw serving military officers working in civilian departments, which had a national security role such as the Intelligence Bureau of the Ministry of the Interior and the Narcotics Control Bureau.

10. The conclusions based on such defective analyses that differences had developed between Musharraf and Kiyani were incorrect. The two have been steadfast friends for many years and this friendship continues. Kiyani had shown many gestures to Musharraf after taking over as the COAS. He agreed to Musharraf's continuing to live in the Army House in Rawalpindi, where the COAS normally lives. Kiyani continues to live in his old house as the Vice-Chief of the Army Staff. While Musharraf stopped going to the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, he retained his camp or residential office in the Army House where he normally attends to all work relating to the Armed Forces in his capacity as the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. While he sent back to the Army the serving military officers in the Presidential Secretariat, he did not send back those working in his camp office. While Musharraf gave Kiyani full freedom of action as the professional head of the Army in all matters concerning promotions, postings, transfers, counter-terrorism operations etc, he continued to perform as actively as before his role as the supreme commander of the Armed Forces. Kiyani kept reporting to Musharraf and not to the acting Prime Minister about all actions taken by him before the elections for maintaining law and order and about the progress of the counter-terrorism operations. The statements issued by the GHQ after the meetings of Kiyani with Musharraf specifically mentioned that Kiyani met Musharraf in his camp office in Rawalpindi. He did not meet him in his Presidential office in Islamabad.

11. Despite all this, the persistent speculation in Pakistan and abroad that Kiyani was marking his distance from Musharraf and striking out independently in matters concerning the Army embarrassed both and created a false sense of confidence in Nawaz and his supporters that the Army would not intervene in support of Musharraf if they carried on their campaign for his ouster. In the first week of March, 2008, Musharraf and Kiyani separately of each other sought to dispel impressions of any differences between them. Musharraf did so during a public interaction and Kiyani during a Corp Commanders' conference on March 6,2008. This had a dampening effect on Nawaz and the PML (N) and contributed to Nawaz's climb-down.

12. Despite Kiyan's denial of differences with Musharraf and his re-affirmation of his continuing loyalty to Musharraf, he is unlikely to intervene in support of Musharraf if there is a confrontation between him and Zardari. But the Army as an institution could intervene in support of Musharraf if there is an unpleasant confrontation with Nawaz, who is intensely disliked by senior army officers because of his perceived attempts to humiliate the Army and Musharraf in October,1999, by sacking Musharraf while he had not yet returned to the country from his visit to Sri Lanka, breaking with the traditions of the Army by nominating Lt.Gen.Ziauddin, the then Director-General of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), who was an engineer, as the COAS in place of Musharraf and attempting to force Musharraf's plane to land in an airport in India, which senior officers saw as enemy territory. It was the outraged senior Army officers under the leadership of Lt.Gen.Mohammed Aziz, the then Chief of the General Staff, who physically prevented Ziauddin from taking over, arrested him and Nawaz and seized power. Whereas the coups of Ayub Khan and Zia-ul-Haq were staged by them, the coup which gave political power to Musharraf was staged by his senior officers because of their anger over the way Nawaz treated the Army. This anger had been building up since 1998 when Nawaz forced Gen.Jehangir Karamat to quit as the COAS because of his unhappiness over his public statement calling for the setting-up of a National Security Council.

13. The fear that the Army may not remain quiet if he pushed his confrontation with Musharraf and his personal anger against Musharraf to the point of forcing his exit under humiliating conditions has now made Nawaz moderate some of his demands. Zardari has been more mature on some of these issues. He has hinted at his willingness to work in accommodation with Musharraf provided his powers to dismiss the Prime Minister and dissolve the National Assembly are removed. He has also hinted at his willingness to allow some of the new policy-making institutions set up by Musharraf to continue to function--- such as the NSC, an original idea ofd Karamat. He has also avoided calling for any major changes in Musharraf's policy of co-operating with the US in counter-terrorism. He has marked his distance from Musharraf in matters relating to operations against the Baloch militants, but not against Al Qaeda and the Neo Taliban. He has been more attentive to the concerns and views of the US and the rest of the West than Nawaz.

14. The US has stopped its public identification with Musharraf and its lionisation of him. The policy of "Musharraf right or wrong" is being slowly jettisoned without seeming to be so. It would like Musharraf to continue in office, but is longer averse to his quitting if this comes about gradually and not in an abrupt manner, damaging the operations against the terrorists. There are three foreign players actively, but discreetly involved in efforts to avoid a crisis in Pakistan---the US, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia has some influence over Nawaz and the UAE over Zardari. Will their efforts to prevent a crisis in Pakistan succeed? It is too early to say. Whether a crisis is prevented or not would depend on the willingness of Musharraf and Nawaz to forget the perceived humiliation, which they suffered at the hands of each other in October,1999. The majority of public opinion in Pakistan would prefer that Musharraf quits, but how to bring it about in a manner that would not damage Pakistan's national interests?

15.Maqdoom Amin Fahim, the Vice-Chairman of the PPP, had visited the US in 2007. During his interactions with the Pakistani community in the US he was repeatedly asked two questions: Why was Benazir not supporting the campaign of the lawyers and Nawaz for the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhury? Why was she discouraging her party cadress from joining the public demonstrations on this issue? According to reports carried by sections of the Pakistani media in the US, he replied that Benazir was not convinced that Nawaz was genuinely interested in the independence of the judiciary. Nawaz was hoping that if he succeeded in getting the Chief Justice reinstated, the latter as a quid pro quo would set aside his conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act in 2000 thereby paving the way for his becoming the Prime Minister again. The Maqdoom also reportedly stated that Benazir was against a street agitation against Musharraf because she feared that such an agitation could lead to one military dictator being replaced by another just as Yahya Khan replaced Ayub Khan.

16. These reservations of Benazir would continue to influence the policies of Zardari and the PPP despite all the bonhomie exhibited for the media cameras at the time of the signing of the joint declaration on government formation on March 9,2008. ( 11-3-08)

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

MALAYSIA: VOTE FOR A CHANGE IN CONTINUITY

B.RAMAN

In what has been seen as its worst performance in a general election since Malaysia's independence in 1957, the multi-racial coalition led by Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi called the Barisan Nasional (National Front) has won 139 out of the 220 seats in the elections to the Parliament held on March 8,2008. Results for two more seats are awaited. Even if it wins these two seats, it will have only 141 seats as against the 148 required for a two-thirds majority.

2. The ruling coalition has acquired an absolute majority, which would be adequate for it to continue in power under Prime Minister Badawi, but it would no longer be able to amend the Constitution without the support of the opposition. Winning a two-thirds majority has always been seen as the end-objective of the ruling coalition. It has won it in every election since 1957 except in 1969, when it lost its two-thirds majority very narrowly.

3. This is the second time the ruling coalition has gone to polls under the leadership of Mr.Badawi. In the 2004 elections under his leadership, it won 199 seats. It has thus suffered a loss of 60 seats in this election. An alliance of opposition parties consisting of the Democratic Action Party (DAP), the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (the Justice Party---PKR) led by former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr.Anwar Ibrahim,and the Islamic Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), won a spectacular increase in its tally from 19 seats in 2004 to 81 seats.

4. The BN also suffered major reverses in the elections to the State Assemblies, which were held simultaneously. The Islamic PAS obtained a two-thirds majority in Kelantan, where it was already in power. The opposition alliance won control of four states - Kedah, Penang, Perak and Selangor--- from the BN. There are 13 States and three Federal Territories in Malaysia.The main constituents of the BN are --- the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) and the Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia (Malaysian People's Movement) . The MCA and the MIC seem to have been largely repudiated by the Malaysian communities of Chinese and Indian origin, which they represented. However, it is not yet known how many seats each of the four major components of the BN won.

5.While Indian-origin Malaysians constitute only about nine per cent of the total population of Malaysia, Indian-origin voters form significant numbers in at least 67 parliamentary and 141 state assembly seats where they comprise between 9% and 46% of the electorate. They seem to have used their numbers to vote for the Opposition. They were the deciding factor in constituencies where Malay and Chinese votes were divided. Indian-origin voters, who in the past voted for the Government in large numbers, did not do so this time.

6.Twenty-two Indian-origin candidates contested for 18 parliamentary seats and 49 Indian-origin candidates contested for 40 State Assembly seats. The MIC fielded nine candidates for the Parliament and 19 for the State Assemblies. The DAP fielded seven Indian-origin candidates for the Parliament and 17 for the State Assemblies while the PKR fielded six Indian-origin candidates for the Parliament and 13 for the State Assemblies. Only three of the nine candidates fielded by the MIC for the Parliament have won. About 20 Indian-origin candidates fielded by the DAP and the PKR for the Parliament and State Assembly elections are reported to have won. However, it is not yet known how many for the Parliament and how many for the State Assemblies.

7.Mr.S. Samy Vellu, who is the President of the MIC and was also the Minister for Works in the outgoing Cabinet, lost his Sungai Siput parliamentary seat in Perak he had held for three decades. He was the longest-serving Minister with almost 30 years in the Cabinet. He was defeated by Dr D. Jeyakumar of Mr.Anwar Ibrahim's PKR. Samy Vellu, whose Tamil-speaking parents worked as rubber tappers in a rubber plantation, started his career as a bus conductor and then an office boy. After taking over the leadership of the MIC in 1979 and becoming a Minister, he became one of the richest Malaysians of Indian-origin .

8. Mr.Manoharan Malayalam, a leader of the HINDRAF (Hindu Rights Action Force) presently under detention under the Internal Security Act along with some other leaders of the HINDRAF, won the election to the Selangor State Assembly as a candidate of the DAP. He won by a margin of 7184 votes defeating a Chinese candidate of the ruling coalition in a constituency, where Chinese voters are in a majority. He, like many other Indian-origin candidates, carried on his election campaign through E-mail and SMS messages.

9. The results are a vote not against the continuance of Mr.Badawi as the Prime Minister, but against the continuance of some of his policies relating to economic development, the reluctance to change the policy of preference to Bhumiputras (sons of the soil) in matters relating to employment and award of licences for starting industries and business enterprises, arbitrariness in governance by exploiting the two-thirds majority etc. Perceptions of a soft policy towards corruption and crime have also contributed to the losses suffered by the ruling coalition. The campaign launched by Dr.Mahatir Mohammad, Mr.Badawi's predecessor as the Prime Minister, on allegations of corruption against the Government some months ago also contributed to the set-back suffered by Mr.Badawi.

10. The election results make it clear that the ruling coalition, which will continue to rule the country, but with a reduced majority, no longer enjoys the confidence of the minority communities of Chinese and Indian origin to the same extent as in the past. While the unhappiness of the Chinese-origin community is essentially due to perceptions of economic injustice to them, that of the Indian-origin community is due to perceptions of economic injustice to them as well as the Government's perceived indifference to their anger over the demolition of a large number of Hindu temples and bulldozing of religious idols by the local authorities in many places on the ground that the temples had been constructed illegally on land not belonging to them.

11. Mr.Badawi was not in a position to address the economic grievances of the two communities during the election campaign lest there be angry reactions from the Malays. But he did address the religious grievances of the Hindu members of the community of Indian origin by promising through advertisements in the media that he would see that there were no more demolitions of the Hindu temples in future. However, his promises on the temple issue were not adequate to win back the support of the Indian-origin community.

12.The election results are likely to create a political vacuum in the Indian-origin community. The MIC of Samy Vellu stands discredited because of his failure to pay attention to the anger of the Indian origin people. He was seen by large sections of the members of the community as mainly interested in the perks of office as a Cabinet Minister without the courage to stand up for the interests of his community.

13. The HINDRAF has not yet been able to emerge as a new political party to take the place of the MIC. It is seen by large sections of the Malays and even by Government circles as having links with the Hindu nationalist forces in India and with Hindu religious elements in the US. The HINDRAF could, therefore, face difficulties in converting itself into a political formation with an identity and policies of its own, different from those of the MIC.

14. The election results are a wake-up call for policy correctives. Even after the set-back, Mr.Badawi has sufficient majority mathematically to implement the required correctives, but it is not just a question of electoral mathematics. It is also a question of emotions ---the kind of adverse reactions which policy changes might create in the Malay community. To continue in power, he has to depend on the Malays. He has to carry them along with him in his quest for policy correctives.

15. The opposition parties are intensely happy over the results. At the same time, they have cautioned their cadres against any public celebration of their good performance. They do not want a repetition of 1969 when celebrations over the failure of the ruling coalition to get a two-thirds majority led to widespread communal riots between the Malays and the Chinese-origin people. (9-3-08)

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi and, presently, Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

AURANGZEBS OF TODAY
B.RAMAN

In a statement made after the July,2005, blasts in London organised by suicide terrorists of Pakistani origin, Mr.Tony Blair, the then British Prime Minister, spoke of the need to counter jihadi terrorism not only operationally through better intelligence, better physical security, better counter-terrorism operations etc, but also ideologically in order to draw the attention of the public to the pernicious ideas being spread by Al Qaeda and pro-Al Qaeda jihadi organisations and counter them energetically.

2. Amognst such pernicious ideas are that there was no civilisation in the world before the advent of Islam, that the Muslims have a right to re-capture all lands which historically belonged to them, that the Muslims do not recognise national frontiers and ,therefore, have a right to wage a jihad anywhere in the world where Islam is in danger and that the Muslims have the religious right and obligation to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and use them to protect their religion, if necessary.

3. The Pakistani jihadi organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI), the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM), the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM) and the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ), which are members of Osama bin Laden's International Islamic Front (IIF), project Aurangzeb as the greatest ruler in the history of the Indian sub-continent and describe their aim as the "liberation" of the Muslims of India and restoration of what they view as the golden era of Aurangzeb in the sub-continent.

4. This glorification of Aurangzeb was actually started by the Pakistan Government after the birth of Pakistan in 1947. The text-books got written and prescribed in schools by different Pakistan Governments depicted that there was no civilisation or culture in India before the Muslims came to the sub-continent and glorified Aurangzeb. In September 1996, Murtaza Ali Bhutto, the younger brother of Benazir Bhutto, was allegedly killed by the police of Karachi after he had returned from Islamabad, where he allegedly had a fierce quarrel with Benazir and her husband Mr.Asif Ali Zardari over his demand that he should be appointed as the Vice-Chairman of the Pakistan People's Party. In a piece on the rule of Benazir, the "Economist" of London compared her to Aurangzeb.

5. This created a lot of interest among analysts over the influence of the Aurangzeb model on the minds of Pakistani rulers----political and military--- who grew up after its independence and studied the text-books, which glorified him. It is now recognised by imany that one of the reasons for the spreading prairie fire of jihadi terrorism in Pakistan is the pernicious influence of the Aurangzeb model on the mind-set of the Pakistani youth. Many of them, who are spreading havoc across Pakistan, see themselves as the Aurangzebs of today. Aurangzeb as well as bin Laden are their role models.

6. The overwhelming majority of the Indian Muslim youth, who remain intensely patriotic, have not let themselves be influenced by this pernicious veneration of bin Laden and Aurangzeb and their ideas, but recent events such as the involvement of one or two Indian Muslims in the UK with Al Qaeda, the role of two Indian Muslim youth in the attempted terrorist strikes in London and Glasgow in June last and the recent arrests of some Muslim youth of the Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) in Karnataka indicate that some of these pernious ideas might have started winning adherents in the India Muslim community too---- in India as well as in the diaspora in the Gulf and the West.

7. Before this spreads further, it is important to counter this phenomenon ideologically. This is what some respected Muslim clerics and scholars, who had met recently at Deoband, had done. One must welcome their initiative in condemning terrorism. That is also what some activists against terrorism under Mr.Francois Gautier, a well-known French journalist living in India for many years, have been doing. Whereas the appeal of the Deobandi congregation was addressed to the Muslim community specifically, the anti-terrorism campaign of Gautier and his small, but devoted band of associates is addressed to all people----whatever be their nationality, religion, ethnicity etc. It seeks to educate them not only on the evils of terrorism, but also on the mental origin of it.

8. To understand the mental origin of the jihadi terrorism emanating from Pakistan, it is important to identify not only their present-day mentors such as bin Laden, the Pakistani jihadi leaders and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), but also their historical idols. Aurangzeb is one of their topmost historical idols. It is important to educate the people of India on the real nature of Aurangzeb, his policies and actions so that they do not get easily carried away by the way Aurangzeb's rule is depicted by the jihadi terrorists.

9. An exhibition organised by Gautier and his associates as part of this education process had a successful run in New Delhi, Pune and Bangalore. In Pune, over 100,000 people visited it. In none of these places, did the members of the local Muslim community view the exhibition as anti-Muslim or anti-Islam. Unfortunately, some members of the community in Chennai viewed it as anti-Muslim and demanded that the exhibition be discontinued. This has reportedly been done on the advice of the Police.

10. I had attended the inauguration of the exhibition on the opening day (March 3,2008) and spoke on the importance of understanding the pernicious ideas about Aurangzeb being spread by Pakistani jihadi organisations. I had seen all the exhibits before the inauguration and did not find any of them of a provocative nature. More than the paintings, what was so eloquent in the exhibition was the collection of scanned copies of the various orders issued by Aurangzeb during his rule. These documents were authentic and the scanned copies were made over a period of three years from a Mughul Archive in Rajasthan which, I was told, contain a wealth of documents relating to the Mughul period.

11. One of the contentions of those, who protested against the exhibition, was that raking up the past would create a communal divide in Tamil Nadu, which has been relatively free of it.One of the lessons of history has been that remaining silent on unpleasant periods in history leads to a repetition of such unpleasant experiences. That is why Western school children are taught about the evils of rulers like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin etc. That is why the Jewish people keep reminding themselves and the rest of the world about the holocaust. That was why some years ago Jean-Marie Le Pen, the French rightist leader, was severely criticised for denying the reality of the holocaust.

12. When we deny harsh truths of history, we are only playing into the hands of jihadi terrorists, who see themselves as the Aurangzebs of today.

13. The Annexure gives extracts from what foreign scholars, including scholars in Pakistan itself, have been saying on this subject of what a Pakistani scholar described as a creation of myths regarding the real nature of Muslim rule.When Pakistanis have themselves started realising the damage done to their society and country by this myth-making, leaders of our Muslim community should refrain from starting a similar myth-making exercise in India about the past.(8-3-08)

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

ANNEXURE

From: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Date: 2007

"Aurangzeb or Aurangzib , 1618-1707, Mughal emperor of India (1658-1707), son and successor of Shah Jahan . He served (1636-44, 1653-58) as viceroy of the Deccan but was constantly at odds with his father and his eldest brother, Dara Shikoh, the heir apparent. When Shah Jahan fell ill in 1658, Aurangzeb seized the opportunity to fight and defeat Dara and two other brothers in a battle for succession. He imprisoned his father for life and ascended the throne at Agra with the reign title Alamgir [world-shaker]. A scholarly, austere man, devoted to Islam, he persecuted the Hindus, destroying their temples and monuments. He executed the guru of the Sikhs (see Sikhism ) when he refused to embrace Islam. Although the Mughal empire reached its greatest extent under Aurangzeb, it was also fatally weakened by revolts of the Sikhs, Rajputs, and Jats in the north and the rebellion of the Marathas in the Deccan. From 1682, Aurangzeb concentrated all his energies on crushing the Marathas, but his costly campaigns were only temporarily successful and further weakened his authority in the north. The Mughal empire fell apart soon after his death."

2.FROM THE WIKIPEDIA

"Pakistan Studies departments and curricula have been criticized by academics and scholars in Pakistan and the West, for propagating jingoist and irredentist beliefs about Pakistan's history and culture. While no scholar denies Pakistan's rich historical and cultural diversity, the Pakistan Studies groups are criticized for being insufficiently objective in its portrayal, particularly with regards to political Islam and the treatment of minorities such as Hindus and Christians in the country. Irredentism is manifested through claims of "eternal Pakistan" (despite the country being created from British India only in 1947), narrow and sectarian interpretation of Islam, downplaying the tolerant aspects of the religion and focusing on Islamic Fundamentalist interpretations (such as all banking being un-Islamic), and making accusations of dual loyalty on minority Hindus and Christians in Pakistan.[1] One survey even found out that Pakistan Studies textbooks include derogatory remarks against minority religious groups, and the generalized teaching of religious intolerance as acceptable.The Pakistan Studies textbooks have been used as locations to articulate the hatred that Pakistani policy makers have attempted to inculcate towards their Hindu citizens as well as Hindus in India.

"A study by Nayyar & Salim concluded in 2003 that there is an increasing trend where children are taught Pakistan Studies as a replacement for the teaching of history and geography as full fledged disciplines. Previously, children were taught the very early pre-Islamic history of South Asia and its contribution to rich cultural diversity of modern-day Pakistan.This long historical perspective of Pakistan is absent these Pakistan Studies textbooks. Instead, children are now taught that the history of Pakistan starts from the day the first Muslim set foot in India. The study reported that the textbooks also had a lot of gender-biased stereotypes and other perspectives that "encourage prejudice, bigotry and discrimination towards fellow Pakistanis and other nations, especially against religious minorities, as well as the omission of concepts ... that could encourage critical self awareness among students”.

"According to Ayesha Jalal, "Pakistan's history textbooks amongst the best available sources for assessing the nexus between power and bigotry in creative imaginings of a national past." She points out authors whose "expansive pan- Islamic imaginings" detect the beginnings of Pakistan in the birth of Islam on the Arabian pensinsula. M.Ikram Rabbani and Monawwar Ali Sayyid's An Introduction to Pakistan Studies, a compulsory reading for first and second year college students studying for an F.A degree in history, begins with a chapter on the establishment of Pakistan based on a concept of Islamic sovereignty. "Allah alone is sovereign and the 'ruler of the Islamic State does not possess any authority of his own'. The coming of Islam to the Indian subcontinent was a 'blessing' since Hinduism was based on an 'unethical caste system'." M.D.Zafar's A Text Book of Pakistan Studies claims that Pakistan "came to be established for the first time when the Arabs under Mohammad bin Qasim occupied Sind and Multan'; by the thirteenth century 'Pakistan had spread to include the whole of Northern India and Bengal' and then under the Khiljis, Pakistan moved further south-ward to include a greater part of Central India and the Deccan'. [...] The spirit of Pakistan asserted itself', and under Aurangzeb the 'Pakistan spirit gathered in strength'; his death 'weakened the Pakistan spirit'."

"Jalal points out that even an acclaimed scholar like Jamil Jalibi questions the validity of a national history that seeks to "claim Pakistan's pre-Islamic past" in an attempt to compete with India's historic antiquity. K.Ali's two volume history designed for B.A students traces the pre-history of the 'Indo-Pakistan' subcontinent to the paleolithic age and consistently refers to the post-1947 frontiers of Pakistan while discussing the Dravidians and the Aryans.

"According to some author like Amar Jaleel "What is being taught to our children in the name of history and Pakistan Studies in schools is far from the truth" .

"Jalal points out the consistent religious bias in Pakistan Studies textbooks. "While 'the houses of the Muslims were more spacious, airy and open to light' that of the Hindus had 'small rooms, verandahs and less space open to sky [sic]' which 'shows the secret and exclusive attitude of Hindu mind [sic]'. For students who have had no contact with Hindus both statements, differences in style notwithstanding, can easily fuel a form of inverted bigotry. The more so since they are given abundant 'evidence' to underline the invidiousness of Hindu majoritarianism."

"used to articulate the hatred that Pakistani policy-makers have attempted to inculcate towards the Hindus. Government-issued textbooks teach students that Hindus are backward and superstitious, and given a chance, they would assert their power over the weak, especially, Muslims, depriving them of education by pouring molten lead in their ears. The report adds that in these textbooks, students are taught that "Islam brought peace, equality, and justice to the subcontinent, to check the sinister ways of Hindus." The report adds that "In Pakistani textbooks “Hindus” rarely appears in a sentence without adjective such as politically astute, sly, or manipulative."

"A new curriculum for Pakistan Studies is proposed to be implemented from the academic year 2007. According to reports the government has made "drastic changes" in the new Pakistan Studies curriculum, including new chapters on the Musharraf government’s economic and privatisation policies and “enlightened moderation”, and less biased explanations of the Two-Nation Theory and Partition. According to the report, the new National Curriculum for Pakistan Studies for grades IX and X explains the Two-Nation Theory and Pakistan’s ideology “with specific reference to the economic and social deprivation of Muslims in India”. According to an education ministry official quoted in the report, “An effort has been made to exclude all such material that promotes prejudice against the non-Muslims of pre-partition India.”

"An earlier attempt to reform the curriculum failed in 2003, because of resistance by religious parties. The 2003 protests ultimately resulted in the removal of the education minister Zubeda Jalal. Pakistan's current education minister, ex-ISI director general Lt Gen (r) Javed Ashraf Qazi has called the anti-Hindu parts of the curriculum silly, and that "it was time to acknowledge realities instead of inciting hatred."


3.Pakistan's missile symbolism ( A commentary broadcast the BBC by Zaffar Abbas,its correspondent in Islamabad)

Pakistani officials say the successful test-firing of three of its surface-to-surface missiles in the last few days has confirmed the country's capability to strike deep inside enemy territory in the event of a war.

Interestingly, these tests have not only demonstrated the effectiveness of Pakistan's missile technology; the names given to these missiles are full of symbolism.

They suggest that Pakistan relates the present conflict in South Asia to the conflicts of the mediaeval period when Muslim warriors from Afghanistan frequently invaded India.

Ghauri, Ghaznavi, Abdali - these are the three ballistic missiles Pakistan test-fired in the last week.

But these are also names of three prominent Muslim warlords, or conquerors, who invaded India from Afghanistan between the 11th and 18th centuries in an attempt to expand their empires.

Historical histrionics

The medium-range Ghauri missile is Pakistan's answer to India's Prithvi missile, and here the symbolism is perhaps most interesting.
Muhammad Ghauri was a powerful Afghan warlord who in the 12th century had two fierce battles with the Hindu ruler of northern India, Prithviraj Chouhan.
Ghauri was defeated in the first battle and later on, he returned with a bigger army to achieve a convincing victory.

Although India insists that the name Prithvi given to its missile means "earth" and has nothing to do with any Hindu ruler of the past, Pakistan wants the world to believe otherwise.

Battle fetish

The other two missiles Pakistan tested during the week are also named after 11th and 18th-century Afghan conquerors, Mehmood Ghaznavi and Ahmed Shah Abdali.

Ghaznavi is described in history books as a temple-destroyer who attacked India 17 times.

Pakistan has never given any specific reason for naming these missiles after such historical figures.

But the symbolism is a clear reflection of the official mindset in the country.
It shows that for Islamabad, the present conflict with India is a continuation of the battles of the past between people described in Pakistani history books as just Muslim invaders and several of India's cruel Hindu emperors.


4.An article carried by the "Dawn" of Karachi on March 27,2005
The myth of history

By Prof Shahida Kazi

History is a discipline that has never been taken seriously by anyone in Pakistan. As a result, the subject has been distorted in such a way that many a fabricated tale has become part of our collective consciousness
DOES mythology have anything to do with history? Is mythology synonymous with history? Or is history mythology?

Admittedly, the line between the two is a very fine one. From time immemorial, man has always been in search of his roots. He has also been trying to find a real and tangible basis for the legends of ancient days ? legends that have become a part of our collective consciousness. As a result, we witness the quest for proving the existence of King Arthur, the search for whereabouts of the city of Troy, and many expeditions organized to locate the exact site of the landing of Noah?s Ark.

During the 60s and the 70s, there was a worldwide movement to prove that the gods of ancient mythologies did actually exist; they came from distant galaxies; and that mankind owed all its progress to such alien superheroes. Several books were written on the subject.

We, in Pakistan, are a breed apart. Lacking a proper mythology like most other races, we have created our own, populated by a whole pantheon of superheroes who have a wide range of heroic exploits to their credit.

But the difference is that these superheroes, instead of being a part of a remote and prehistoric period, belong very much to our own times. A seemingly veritable mythology has been created around these heroes, their persona and their achievements, which is drummed into the heads of our children from the time they start going to school. So deep is this indoctrination that any attempt to uncover the facts or reveal the truth is considered nothing less than blasphemous.

Here are some of the most common myths:

Myth 1

Our history begins from 712AD, when Mohammad bin Qasim arrived in the subcontinent and conquered the port of Debal.

Take any social studies or Pakistan studies book, it starts with Mohammad bin Qasim. What was there before his arrival? Yes, cruel and despotic Hindu kings like Raja Dahir and the oppressed and uncivilized populace anxiously waiting for a "liberator" to free them from the clutches of such cruel kings. And when the liberator came, he was welcomed with open arms and the grateful people converted to Islam en mass.

Did it really happen? This version of our history conveniently forgets that the area where our country is situated has had a long and glorious history of 6,000 years. Forget Moenjo Daro. We do not know enough about it. But recorded history tells us that before Mohammad Bin Qasim, this area, roughly encompassing Sindh, Punjab and some parts of the NWFP, was ruled by no less than 12 different dynasties from different parts of the world, including the Persians (during the Achamaenian period), the Greeks comprising the Bactrians, Scthians and Parthians, the Kushanas from China, and the Huns (of Attila fame) who also came from China, besides a number of Hindu dynasties including great rulers like Chandragupta Maurya and Asoka.

During the Gandhara period, this region had the distinction of being home to one of the biggest and most important universities of the world at our very own Taxila. We used to be highly civilized, well-educated, prosperous, creative and economically productive people, and many countries benefited a lot from us, intellectually as well as economically. This is something we better not forget. But do we tell this to our children? No. And so the myth continues from generation to generation.

Myth 2

Mohammad Bin Qasim came to India to help oppressed widows and orphan girls.

Because of our blissful ignorance of history, we don't know, or don't bother to know, that this period was the age of expansion of the Islamic empire. The Arabs had conquered a large portion of the world, comprising the entire Middle East, Persia, North Africa and Spain. Therefore, it defies logic that they would not seek to conquer India, the land of legendary treasures.

In fact, the Arabs had sent their first expedition to India during Hazrat Umar Farooq's tenure. A subsequent expedition had come to Makran during Hazrat Usman's rule. But they had been unsuccessful in making any in-roads into the region. Later on, following the refusal of the king to give compensation for the ships captured by pirates (which incidentally included eight ships full of treasures from Sri Lanka, and not just women and girls), two expeditions had already been sent to India, but they proved unsuccessful. It was the third expedition brought by Mohammad Bin Qasim which succeeded in capturing Sindh, from Mansura to Multan. However, because of the Arabs' internal dissension and political infighting, Sindh remained a neglected outpost of the Arab empire, and soon reverted to local kings.

Myth 3

The myth of the idol-breaker.

Mahmood Ghaznavi, the great son of Islam and idol-breaker par excellence, took upon himself to destroy idols all over India and spread Islam in the subcontinent.

Mahmud, who came from neighbouring Ghazni, Central Asia, invaded India no less than 17 times. But except Punjab, he made no attempt to conquer any other part of the country or to try and consolidate his rule over the rest of India. In fact, the only thing that attracted him was the treasures of India, gold and precious stones, of which he took care and carried back home a considerable amount every time he raided the country. Temples in India were a repository of large amounts of treasure at the time, as were the churches in Europe, hence his special interest in temples and idols.

Contrary to popular belief, it was not the kings, the Central Asian sultans who ruled for over 300 years and the Mughals who ruled for another 300 years, who brought Islam to the subcontinent. That work was accomplished by the Sufi Sheikhs who came to India mainly to escape persecution from the fundamentalists back home, and who, through their high-mindedness, love for humanity, compassion, tolerance and simple living won the hearts of the people of all religions.

Myth 4

The myth of the cap-stitcher.

Of all the kings who have ruled the subcontinent, the one singled out for greatest praise in our text books is Aurangzeb, the last of the great Mughals. Baber built the empire; Humayun lost it and got it back; Akbar expanded and consolidated it; Jahangir was known for his sense of justice; Shahjehan for his magnificent buildings. But it is Aurangzeb, known as a pious man, who grabs the most attention. The prevalent myth is that he did not spend money from the treasury for his personal needs, but fulfilled them by stitching caps and copying out the Holy Quran. Is there any real need for discussing this assertion? Anyone who's least bit familiar with the Mughal lifestyle would know how expensive it was to maintain their dozens of palaces. The Mughals used to have many wives, children, courtiers, concubines and slaves who would be present in each palace, whose needs had to be met. Could such expenses be met by stitching caps? And even if the king was stitching caps, would people buy them and use them as ordinary caps? Would they not pay exorbitant prices for them and keep them as heirlooms? Would a king, whose focus had to be on military threats surrounding him from all sides and on the need to save and consolidate a huge empire, have the time and leisure to sit and stitch caps? Let's not forget that the person we are referring to as a pious Muslim was the same who became king after he imprisoned his own father in a cell in his palace and killed all his brothers to prevent them from taking over the throne.

Myth 5

It was the Muslims who were responsible for the war of 1857; and it was the Muslims who bore the brunt of persecution in the aftermath of the war, while the Hindus were natural collaborators of the British.

It is true that more Muslim regiments than Hindu rose up against the British in 1857. But the Hindus also played a major role in the battle (the courageous Rani of Jhansi is a prime example); and if Muslim soldiers were inflamed by the rumour that the cartridges were laced with pig fat, in the case of Hindus, the rumour was that it was cow fat. And a large number of Muslims remained loyal to the British to the very end. (The most illustrious of them being Sir Syed Ahmed Khan.)

Furthermore, the Muslims did not lose their empire after 1857. The British had already become masters of most of India before that time, having grasped vast territories from both Hindu and Muslim rulers through guile and subterfuge.
The Mughal emperor at the time was a ruler in name only; his jurisdiction did not extend beyond Delhi. After 1857, the Hindus prospered, because they were clever enough to acquire modern education, learn the English language, and take to trade and commerce. The Muslims were only land owners, wedded to the dreams of the past pomp and glory, and when their lands were taken away, they were left with nothing; their madressah education and proficiency in Persian proved to be of no help. As a matter of fact, it was a hindrance in such changing times.

Myth 6

The Muslims were in the forefront of the struggle against the British and were singled out for unfair treatment by the latter.

Not at all. In fact, the first gift given to the Muslims by the British was in 1905 in the form of partition of Bengal (later revoked in 1911). The Shimla delegation of 1906 has rightly been called a command performance; the Muslims were assured by the viceroy of separate electorates and weightage as soon as their leaders asked for them. After that, the Muslim League came into being, established by pro-British stalwarts like the Aga Khan, Justice Amir Ali, some other nawabs and feudal lords. And the first objective of the Muslim League manifesto read: "To promote feelings of loyalty to the British government."
The Muslim League never carried out any agitation against the British. The only time the Muslims agitated was during the Khilafat Movement in the early 20s, led by the Ali brothers and other radical leaders. Not a single Muslim League leader, including the Quaid-i-Azam, ever went to jail. It was the Congress which continued the anti-British non-violent and non-cooperation movement in the 30s and 40s, including the famous "Quit India" movement, while Muslim League leaders continued to denounce such movements and exhorted their followers not to take part in them.

Myth 7

The Muslim League was the only representative body of the Muslims.

It is an incontrovertible fact that it was only after 1940 that the Muslim League established itself as a popular party among the Muslims. Prior to that, as evident in the 1937 elections, the Muslim League did not succeed in forming the government in any of the Muslim majority provinces. In those elections, out of the total of 482 Muslim seats, the Muslim League won only 103 (less than one-fourth of the total). Other seats went either to Congress Muslims or to nationalist parties such as the Punjab Unionist Party, the Sind Unionist Party and the Krishak Proja Party of Bengal.

Myth 8

Allama Iqbal was the first person to come up with the idea of a separate Muslim state.

This is one of the most deeply embedded myths in our country and the one which has been propagated by all governments. In fact, the idea that Muslim majority provinces of the north-west formed a natural group and should be considered a single bloc had been mooted by the British as far back as 1858 and freely discussed in various newspaper articles and on political platforms. Several variations of the idea had come from important public personalities, including British, Muslims and some Hindus. By the time Allama Iqbal gave his famous speech in 1930, the idea had been put forward at least 64 times. So, Iqbal voiced something which was already there, and was not an original dream. After his speech at Allahbad was reported, Allama Iqbal published a retraction in a British newspaper that he had not been talking of a separate Muslim sate, but only of a Muslim bloc within the Indian federation.

Myth 9

The Pakistan Resolution envisaged a single Muslim state.

The fact is that none of the proposals regarding the Muslim bloc mooted by different individuals or parties had included East Bengal in it. The emphasis had always been on north-western provinces, which shared common frontiers, while other Muslim majority states, such as Bengal and Hyderabad, were envisaged as separate blocs. So, it was in the Pakistan Resolution. The resolution reads: ?The areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the north-western and eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states, in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.

Leaving aside the poor and ambiguous drafting of the entire resolution, the part about states (in plural) is very clear. It was only in 1946, at a convention of the Muslim League legislators in Delhi, that the original resolution was amended, which was adopted at a general Muslim League session and the objective became a single state.

Myth 10

March 23, 1940 is celebrated because the Pakistan Resolution was adopted on that day. The fact of the matter is that the Pakistan Resolution was only introduced on March 23 and was finally adopted on March 24 (the second and final day of the session).

As to why we celebrate March 23 is another story altogether. The day was never celebrated before 1956. It was first celebrated that year as the Republic Day to mark the passage of the first constitution and Pakistan?s emergence as a truly independent republic. It had the same importance for us as January 26 for India. But when Gen Ayub abrogated the constitution and established martial law in 1958, he was faced with a dilemma. He could not let the country celebrate a day commemorating the constitution that he had himself torn apart, nor could he cancel the celebration altogether. A way-out was found by keeping the celebration, but giving it another name: the Pakistan Resolution Day.


Myth 11

It was Ghulam Muhammad who created imbalance of power between the prime minister and head of state, and it was he who sought to establish the supremacy of the governor-general over the prime minister and parliament.

When Pakistan came into being, the British government?s India Act of 1935 was adopted as the working constitution. And it was the Quaid-i-Azam himself who introduced certain amendments to the act to make the governor-general the supreme authority. It was under these powers that the Quaid-i-Azam dismissed the government of Dr Khan Sahib in the NWFP in August 1947 and that of Mr Ayub Khuhro in Sindh in 1948.

Besides being governor-general, the Quaid-i-Azam also continued as president of the Muslim League and president of the Constituent Assembly.

It was these same powers under which Mr Daultana?s government was dismissed in Punjab in 1949 by Khawaja Nazimuddin, who himself was dismissed as prime minister in 1953 by Ghulam Mohammad.

However, in 1954, a move was started by members of the then Constituent Assembly to table an amendment to the act, taking away excessive powers of the governor-general. It was this move which provoked the governor-general, Ghulam Mohammad, to dismiss the Constituent Assembly in 1954, and thereby change the course of Pakistan?s history.

These are some of the myths that have been drummed into our heads from childhood and have become part of our consciousness. There are scores more, pervading our everyday life. And there are many unanswered questions such as:
What is Pakistan's ideology and when was the term first coined? (It was never heard of before 1907.)? Why was Gandhi murdered? (He was supposedly guarding Pakistan's interest.)? What is the truth about the so-called traitors, Shaikh Mujeeb, Wali Khan, and G.M. Syed?? What caused the break-away of East Pakistan?? Why was Bhutto put to death?? Are all our politicians corrupt and self-serving?? Why does our history repeat itself after every 10 years?
The answers to all these questions require a thorough study of history, not mythology. But history unfortunately is a discipline that has never been taken seriously by anyone in our country. It's time things changed.
The myth of history -DAWN Magazine; March 27, 2005

PAKISTAN: NEW DAWN OR NEW NIGHTMARE?

B.RAMAN

There has been a delay in Government formation in Pakistan due to the resistance faced by Mr.Asif Ali Zardari from the loyalists of theBhutto family to his efforts to have the claims of Maqdoom Amin Fahim, Vice-Chairman of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), excluded fromconsideration for the post of Prime Minister in favour of Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar, who was the Commerce Minister of Mrs.Benazir Bhuttoduring her second term as the Prime Minister (1993-96) and was the Party's Secretary-General. .

2. Chaudhury Mukhtar, reputed to be the richest industrialist of Pakistan ( he owns a shoe-manufacturing empire and his family allegedlymonopolises the leather business in Pakistan) , has been a crony of Zardari for many years. He was widely alleged to be Zardari's front-manin all his commission-making deals when Benazir was the Prime Minister and was known to be fierce in his loyalty to Zardari. When theNawaz Sharif Government, which came to power in 1996, sought to have Zardari harassed on various charges relating to allegations ofcorruption and the death in police firing in September 1996 of Murtaza Ali Bhutto, the younger brother of Benazir and claimant to the post ofVice-Chairman of the PPP, Mukhtar refused to betray Zardari. He even spent some years in jail on a charge of alleged irregularities in theimplementation of the textiles policy when he was the Commerce Minister. The charge could not be proved and he had to be released bythe Musharraf Government.

3. As Commerce Minister, Chaudhury Mukhtar was reputed to be well-disposed towards India and the US and had many friends among thesenior Generals of the Pakistan Army. He was known as a pragmatist in foreign policy matters.It was he, who recommended to Benazir thatPakistan should emulate China in its relations with India by not allowing the pending differences over the future of Kashmir come in the wayof normal economic relations. Benazir was inclined to accept his advice, but ultimately decided not to do so due to strong opposition fromthe Pakistan Foreign Office and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to any delinking of the issue of economic relations from the Kashmirissue.

4.According to well-informed sources, it was he, who prevailed upon Benazir and Zardari last year to make a deal with President PervezMusharraf with the blessings of the US in order to let the corruption charges against them be lifted so that they could come back andresume their political activities. It was reportedly under his advice that Benazir agreed to work with Musharraf as the President provided hegave up the additional post of the Chief of the Army Staff and agreed to the removal of the power of the President to dismiss the electedPrime Minister and National Assembly. Musharraf agreed to the first demand, but not to the second.

5. Ahmed Mukhtar continues to be of the view even after the assassination of Benazir that the PPP should not associate itself with any moveto force the exit of Musharraf from power and that since Musharraf seems to enjoy the confidence of the US despite his mixed track-recordin the fight against Al Qaeda, the PPP should not embarrass the US by rocking the boat for Musharraf. He is of the view that Pakistan'seconomy could again face serious difficulties as it did in the 1990s if the flow of economic assistance from the US stopped or declined.

6. An examination of the recent pronouncements and actions of Zardari would indicate that he is in broad agreement with the policydirection suggested by Mukhtar. When Zardari originally accepted the policy advice of Mukhtar, he was confident that helped by thesympathy wave caused by the assassination of Benazir, the PPP would emerge as a party with an absolute majority of its own so that it didnot have to depend on other parties for forming the Government.

7. This has not happened. It has emerged as the largest single party, but without a majority of its own. It can form a Government only withthe support of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) of Mr.Nawaz Sharif and the Awami National Party (ANP) of the North-West FrontierProvince (NWFP) or the PML (Qaide-Azam), a pro-Musharraf party, and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), which is equallypro-Musharraf. In the recent elections, only 40 per cent of the popular votes went to pro-Musharraf candidates.Sixty per cent of the popularvotes went to candidates, who were critical of him. Under this circumstance, Zardari has no other option but to rely on the PML (N) andANP--- at least for the time being.

8.The ANP, despite its strong dislike of Musharraf and opposition to his co-operation with the US in its so-called war against terrorism, isprepared to go along with the PPP's policy of at least temporary accommodation with Musharraf. But the PML (N) is not . It is determined toforce a confrontation with Musharraf on issues such as the reinstatemnent of the judges sacked by him and removing the variousamendments incorporated by him in the Constitution when he had preoclaimed an emergency in November,2007. It is also determined tomodify the counter-terrorism policy as followed by Musharraf, even at the risk of displeasing the US.Nawaz Sharif, also a businessman likeMukhtar, does not agree with his view that lack of co-operation with the US and the consequent decline or discontinuance in the USeconomic assistance would seriously damage the economy.

9.Thus, Zardari finds himself in a dilemma. He wants to work together with Musharraf under mutually agreed conditions. He wants to bereceptive to US concerns on the terrorism issue.But his dependence on the PML (N) would make this difficult. He foresees a confrontationwith Nawaz Sharif in the short term after the PPP has been in power for a few months, though not immediately. He wants to prepare himselffor that confrontation and feels that Mukhtar would be the right person as the Prime Minister to keep the PML (N) under control. If Zardaridoes not agree to rock the boat for Musharraf, Nawaz might rock the boat for Zardari. That is his fear. Only a Punjabi can check-mateanother Punjabi. Only a businessman can check-mate another businessman. That is his calculation.

10. Nominating a Punjabi as the Prime Minister will be disliked by the rural masses of Sindh, who have overwhelmingly voted for the PPP andremained loyal to Benazir. They look upon Mukhtar as Zardari's man and Amin Fahim as Benazir's man. Amin Fahim has had a relativelyclean public image. He was fiercely loyal to Benazir and rejected Musharraf's offer of Prime Ministership after the 2002 elections if heresigned from the PPP. He comes from a Sindhi family with a formidable reputation in rural Sindh. His father was a founding member of thePPP. They view Zardari's reported attempts to bring in Mukhtar or some other Punjabi loyal to him as meant to marginalise the influence ofthe Bhutto loyalists in the party. They do not look upon Zardari as the natural leader of the PPP after the death of his wife. They rather lookupon him as an usurper.

11. If Zardari overrides their feelings in favour of Amin Fahim and has Mukhtar or some other Punjabi nominated as the Prime Minister, thediscipline in the party is likely to be weakened, with the danger of a Sindhi-Punjabi divide emerging ultimately. After the assassination ofBenazir, the riots in rural Sindh took an anti-Punjabi direction because the Sindhi cadres of the PPP blamed the Punjabi administration forfailing to protect her.

12. There is another reason why Zardari feels uncomfortable with Fahim. Zardari describes himself as Pakistan's Sonia Gandhi--- a leaderand guide of the party, who does not aspire to the office of Prime Minister. He wants as Prime Minister someone, who will keep his influenceparamount. He is worried that Fahim may turn out to be Pakistan's Narasimha Rao. After becoming the Prime Minister, he might try to have Zardari and his son marginalised.

13. Whoever ultimately takes over as the Prime Minister will have to depend for his survival not only on the Army, but also on Al Qaeda andother jihadi terrorists. They look upon the PPP as apostate and the ANP as even a greater apostate. They dislike the PPP as intensely asthey dislike Musharraf because of its pro-US image and Benazir's support to the commando action in the Lal Masjid in July last. They alsolook upon the PPP as the Trojan Horse of the Shias. They allege that Benazir was a Shia and that so is Zardari. Their dislike for the ANP isbecause of its secular and leftist image. The jihadis are determined to see that the PPP-ANP combine will not work ----neither in the NWFPnor in Islamabad. A further surge in jihadi terrorism is to be expected.

14. In a recent article in "The Hindu", Ms. Malini Parthasarathi, the well-known analyst, described the post-election scenario in Pakistan asmarking a new dawn for the country. A new dawn or a new nightmare? Let us keep our fingers crossed. (7-3-08)

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For TopicalStudies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

MUSHARRAF: CO-HABITATION OR EXIT?

B.RAMAN

The expression co-habitation came into vogue in France when the late Francois Mitterrand, the leader of the French Socialist Party, was thePresident in the 1980s. In the elections to the French National Assembly held when he was the President, his party was badly defeated andthe Gaullists under Jacques Chirac won a majority.

2. Mitterrand chose to interpret the results as not reflecting on his presidency and he, as the President, and Chirac, as the Prime Minister,decided to co-habit. Under the French Constitution, the President is not just a figure-head. He has more powers than the British PrimeMinister, but less than the US President. All powers relating to decision-making in respect of foreign policy and national security areexercised by the President who chairs the Cabinet meetings. The Prime Minister exercises all powers relating to domestic policy. Theco-habitation arrangement between Mitterrand and Chirac worked with some periodic tensions, though.

3. The 1973 Pakistani Constitution, which the late Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto gave to Pakistan, resembled the Indian Constitution with all powers inthe hands of the Prime Minister and with the President reduced to a figurehead. Before appointing Mohammad Khan Junejo as the PrimeMinister, Gen.Zia-ul-Haq changed this to give the President all the powers relating to foreign policy and national security and the power todismiss the Prime Minister. He used this power to dismiss Junejo in 1988 when differences developed between the two over the handling ofthe Afghan proximity attacks in Geneva and over the enquiry into a serious explosion in an arms and ammunition storage depot of the Armyand the Inter-Services Intelligence at Ojehri near Islamabad.

4. President Ghulam Ishaq Khan use this power against Benazir Bhutto in 1990 and Nawaz Sharif in 1993. President Farooq Leghari of thePakistan People's Party, who developed differences with Benazir, used this power to dismiss her in 1996 following allegations of corruptionagainst Asif Zardari and his interference in the administration. The mystery surrounding the death of Murtaza Ali Bhutto, her youngerbrother, in police firing in Karachi in September,1996, after he returned to Karachi from Islamabad where he had allegedly a fierce quarrelwith Zardari and Benazir over dinner regarding his right to be nominated as the Vice-Chairman of the Pakistan People's Party, alsocontributed to Leghari's dismissal of Benazir. The cases filed against Asif Zardari at the instance of Leghari are sub-judice.

5. Nawaz Sharif, whose party won a two-thirds majority in the 1996 elections, used this majority to abolish the power of the President todismiss the elected Prime Minister.After seizing power in October,1999,Pervez Musharraf had this power restored in the Constitution. Healso instituted the National Security Council chaired by the President, and transferred to the President all powers relating todecision-making in foreign policy and national security matters. The Constitution, as repeatedly re-cast by Musharraf, resembles more theFrench than the Indian Constitution. Musharraf, therefore, need not necessarily resign because his opponents or critics have secured amajority in the elections.

6. Unless and until the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) of Nawaz Sharif are able to have theConstitutional amendments removed, Musharraf will continue to exercise the power of dismissal of the Prime Minister and handle allimportant decision-making in foreign policy and national security matters. That is why when Benazir was negotiating with Musharraf shewas demanding the abolition of the power of the President to dismiss the elected Prime Minister and of the NSC. Musharraf rejected both these demands.

7. A major point of difference between the PPP and the PML (N) related to Nawaz's demand for the reinstatement of Chief Justic IftikharAhmed Chaudhury, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, removed by Musharraf. Benazir found it difficult to support this demand because,in her view, the dismissed Chief Justice was taking undue interest in the expeditious disposal of the case relating to the alleged murder ofMurtaza Bhutto, which has been going on for 12 years with frequent adjournments like the case relating to the kidnapping and murder ofDaniel Pearl, the US journalist by pro-Al Qaeda elements in the beginning of 2002.

8. The national reconciliatuion orders which Musharraf issued last year under an understanding reached with Benazir at the instance of theUS related to all corruption-related cases, but not to the case under the Anti-Terrorism Act under which Nawaz stands convicted and thetrial relating to the death of Murtaza Bhutto. Nawaz is keen to have the dismissed Chief Justice reinstated because firstly, he thinks he willhave the re-election of Musharraf as the President set aside, which Nawaz cannot achieve without a two-thirds majority in the NationalAssembly, and, secondly, he hopes that the reinstated Chief Justice will have his own conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act set aside,thereby enabling him to be the Prime Minister. Till his conviction is set aside, he cannot be the Prime Minister.

9. The two most liked leaders in the eyes of the Army and the US are Maqdoom Amin Fahim, the Vice-Chairman of the PPP, who used to bethe Minister For Petroleum under Benazir Bhutto during her second tenure as the Prime Minister, and Shahbaz Sharif, the younger brother ofNawaz Sharif. Amin Fahim was immensely liked by the US oil companies, particularly UNOCAL. When the UNOCAL hosted a dinner to the thenPresident of Turkmenistan in New York, Benazir deputed him to attend the dinner. After the elections of 2002, Amin Fahim, who is close toMusharraf, was Musharraf's first choice as the Prime Minister. Fahim declined the offer and refused to betray Benazir. Shahbaz Sharif wasvery close the US State Department. Amin Fahim and Shahbaz Sharif are both liked by the Punjabi Generals and the US, who strongly dislikeAsiz Zardari and Nawaz Sharif. One of the reasons for the PPP not doing as well in Southern Punjab as it was expected is the unpopularityof Zardari among the Punjabis.

10. The election results, which are still coming in, have highlighted an interesting outcome. No party has acquired a majority on its own. ThePPP has emerged as the largest single party and will, therefore, have the right to be called first to attempt to form a Government. It willhave two options--- either form the government in co-operation with the PML (N) or in co-operation with PML (Qaide Azam) and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) of Altaf Hussain---both supporters of Musharraf. If Nawaz Sharif strikes a hard bargain by demanding there-instatement of the sacked Chief Justice, Zardari might be reluctant to agree to it. On the contrary, the PML (QA) is unlikely to impose anyconditions to co-operate with the PPP. The only conditions which the MQM might impose are the recognition of its importance in anyGovernment formed in Sindh. A major difficulty for the PPP in co-operating with the PML (QA) would be the presence of some remnants ofthe Zia ul-Haq regime in it. It strongly suspects that these remnants must have played a role in the assassination of Benazir.

11. The US and other Western countries are interested in Musharraf continuing as the President. They don't trust Nawaz Sharif because ofhis links with the Jamaat-e-Islami of Qazi Hussain Ahmed. The Jamaat-e-Islami boycotted the elections, but its cadres campaigned forNawaz's Party in Punjab and the North-West Frontier Province. They would like to work for a co-habitation arrangement with Musharraf asthe President and Amin Fahim or Shahbaz Sharif as the Prime Minister. Will they succeed or will Musharraf have to quit? The answer to thisquestion lies as much in Washington DC as in Islamabad. Musharraf still has some wriggle room, if he wants to exercise it. Will he wriggle or call it quits? (19-2-08)

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd) , Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For TopicalStudies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )