tehelka.com
'Despots like Musharraf get a place only in the dustbin of history'
Jamaat-e-Islami of Pakistan is in focus for leading an anti-America and anti-Musharraf campaign by religious parties. Jamaat chief Qazi Masood Hussain, along with heads of other religious parties, is being held in custody. In his absence, Jamaat has appointed Syed Munawar Hasan as the acting "amir" (chief) to lead the civil disobedience movement against the Musharraf government in Pakistan. Zafar Agha speaks to Hasan chief over the phone in the context of the chakka jam in Pakistan on Friday, November 9
New Delhi, November 9
The Jamaat-e-Islami chief has recently been arrested. Why is the government of Pakistan scared of the Jamaat and its chief?
Basically, this government is the weakest government in the history of Pakistan. They are weak and frightened, and frightened people make silly decisions. The government's public posture is that very few people support our position, and that most people support their policies and approach. The fact though is that the government is scared of us and of our chief. What other reason could there be for putting us behind bars?
The Jamaat has called for a strike today. How is the strike progressing?
The Jamaat has not called for the strike. There is the Pak-Afghan Defence Council, comprising nine to 11 parties. The heads of these parties unanimously decided to call for a chakka jam (wheel jam). Although the government is trying to scuttle everything and create problems, so far the strike has been very successful. We hope things will pass peacefully.
But President Pervez Musharraf claims that religious parties and protestors are only a minority in Pakistan…
Gallop conducted at least two surveys - one before the war started - and 54 per cent were of the opinion that Musharraf is in the wrong. The second survey, conducted after the war, showed that 85 per cent of the people said that Musharraf has been going in the wrong direction. I think that if this survey were conducted at this moment, more than 95 per cent will oppose his policy. This is one of the indicators.
Another indicator is that in 50 years of Pakistan's history, only religious parties have led mass movements. No political parties, or conventional political parties, have ever led mass movements in this country without our support. Only when secular parties and religious parties get together are mass movements launched.
But why is it that religious parties have not held much strength in Parliament?
We are a feudal society, and only the corrupt and the feudal can reach and approach our Parliament. If you look at the elections of the last 30-40 years, you will see that the same people and the same families return to power every time.
Do you mean to say that feudal landlords have hijacked democracy in Pakistan?
The feudal lords have hijacked it, and they have been conducting politics in the country. Everybody knows about that. About 75-80 per cent of all seats are won by those easily identified as the corrupt people or the landlords.
Who are these landlord families? We know or hear of some, like the Bhuttos.
They too are included in that: the Bhuttos and Zardaris and Maulas. Several elections have been conducted, and people have seen the results. They know for a fact that the same people will return to the assemblies and Parliament. Since these feudal families have no roots among the masses, they cannot lead any popular movement, and never have in the past. So these secular parties look to us for mass movements.
Is there any move by religious parties to involve secular parties against Musharraf?
In fact, the Muslim league of Nawaz Sharif has already joined us. The same is true about Nawabzada Nasrullah's party. They too have joined us. Then, Ghinwa Bhutto's party is also a part of our alliance. In fact, some other mainstream parties have also made moves to join us. So our anti-Musharraf alliance is broadening now.
Are you saying that the fight against the Musharraf government and its policies towards Afghanistan is gaining momentum?
Yes, it is gaining momentum. In every nook and corner of the country, there are processions and rallies, and at least a dozen rallies in the cities at all times. As a matter of fact, the Press is being controlled and advised, particularly the major papers like Jung and The News and Dawn, not to highlight news about these rallies and processions. As far as the people are concerned, though, we have already given call for two strikes in the past, and they were 100 per cent successful.
Basically, what is the objective you are looking at?
We are essentially opposing American policies in this region. I can tell you that the Americans do not understand the Muslims. Iran used to be their best friend, but now Iran is America's worst enemy. Their policies have backfired in Iran. The same is the case with Afghanistan. The US backed the Mujahideen, but now every Afghan is fighting against them. This is exactly what will happen in Pakistan as well. The US is essentially interested in converting Afghanistan into another Israel-like State, so as to police the entire region for them.
What they do not know is that this will prove counter-productive. Since our government is hand-in-glove with US President George W Bush, we are also opposing the Musharraf government. The movement launched in Pakistan is basically against the US and those who are supporting it, particularly Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf has given Pakistani airspace, logistics etc to the US. Either they should change their policies or they should themselves go.
You are saying that Pervez Musharraf is trying to convert Pakistan into another Israel in this region…
Americans would prefer Kabul or some part of Afghanistan to reign in any anti-US activity in the region. To begin with, the US wanted to use independent Kashmir for this purpose. But now the things have changed. So, now I think that they would like to use Kabul and its vicinity. They will not have any foothold in Pakistan in the long term, and they know it. That is why they are now trying to capture Afghanistan.
You mean to say that they are trying for bases in South Asia, especially inside Afghanistan.
That they have achieved in some parts of Central Asia, and they may manage it in Afghanistan as well. But the US has virtually captured Pakistan without any attack. The USSR wanted to reach the hot waters through Afghanistan, and they did not manage that. The Pakistani leadership today has given the US our ports and air bases on a platter. Many of our sensitive areas have already been opened to them. As a matter of fact, we have already become a colony of the US, and that is the reason why people have taken to the streets in protest against the government.
What about Bush's decision to continue bombing Afghanistan during the month of Ramazan. How do you look at it?
We welcome this decision. If a tyrant nation has bombarded Afghanistan for more than four or five weeks, why should anyone expect them to stop for Ramazan. They should continue to do that, because they still haven't achieved the objectives they fixed for themselves. Those targets haven't been met, and hopefully they'll have to face the music, just as the USSR did. You see, Afghanistan has always proved to be the graveyard of the superpowers. The British and the USSR experienced it in the past, and now the US has come to find their grave there. So Ramazan or no Ramazan…Ramazan is a month of jihad for the Muslims, and hopefully they'd fight their enemies much more vigorously in this month, as Prophet did during the battle of Badr.
Can the Muslims go to war even in this holy month of fasting and prayers?
It is our history; it started in Badr.
But in Badr, the prophet defended himself. The battle of Badr was not launched by the Prophet.
Yes, you are right. Even in Afghanistan, the Afghans will be defending themselves. What options do they have, except to defend themselves, even if it is Ramazan?
You mean to say, during the month of Ramazan, the Muslims should avoid war; they should avoid an offence, but if they are attacked they must defend?
That is a theoretical question. They are already facing aggression from America, and the Pakistani leadership is supporting this aggression. They are standing with America. So we will continue our struggle against the Americans and the Pakistani leadership even in Ramazan.
What kind impact will a war against the Afghans in the month of Ramazan have on Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia?
You see, the latest Afghan war has generated a great awakening among Muslims all over the world. Muslim societies are in ferment. Repressive regimes might crush them for now, but the Muslims are awake and more aware now. The commoner on the street has now started understanding which Muslim rulers are with the US. Only Muslims are labelled as terrorists. A small Palestine child, who has a stone in his hand, is a terrorist, but not the Israelis who come on tanks and bulldoze Palestinian buildings. A Jew cannot be a terrorist, a Hindu cannot be a terrorist, and a Tamil tiger cannot be a terrorist. A Timothy can't be a terrorist. A non-Muslim can never be a terrorist.
How long can you fool Muslims with this kind of double standards? Now, every Muslim has come to a conclusion that this war is against Muslims, against Muslim resurgence movements, against Islam, and that it has nothing to do with terrorism.
I was asking you about countries like Saudi Arabia and organisations like the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC). How do you look at their passive role in this crisis? Do they truly represent Muslim interests?
The OIC, recently, gathered their foreign ministers. They couldn't hold the meeting at the presidential or the top level, and they gathered there only for a few hours. So, Muslims, I think, cannot and should not expect anything from platforms like the OIC. As far as countries like Saudi Arabia are concerned, I may point out that a recently-conducted BBC survey said that the popularity of Osama bin Laden is increasing hugely in Saudi Arabia. Osama bin laden, therefore, is not an individual but a mission. He has become an objective to be achieved. He's talking about Islam. This war is bringing about a new awakening through this war.
Countries like Saudi Arabia always talk about Islam…
You see, common Muslims and the so-called Islamic governments are now two separate entities, divorced from each other. Basically, the US is fond of repressive regimes. They like monarchs, kings, sheikhs and military generals. When a king dies, many US leaders flock to his funeral, and shout "the king is dead, long live the king". But they should now know that the new awakening gripping Muslim countries will unsettle both the US and their supporters in Muslim countries.
But it is said that Islam doesn't accept democracy. What do you say about that?
Islam is democratic in temperament. Do you know our first Caliph was elected? It is America that has never ever allowed democracy to flourish in Muslim countries. Who defeated democracy in Turkey and then perpetuated the hold of army over the Turkish establishment? Why was democracy not allowed to flourish in Algeria? What happened in Egypt? Why is a democratic Palestine not allowed to exist? Why do Pakistani generals readily get American backing? Where and when have Muslims been given the choice to elect their rulers? So don't say that Islam does not permit democracy.
But what about Islamic countries? 99 per cent of them are ruled by autocrats.
I already told you. If monarchs and despots are sitting in various Islamic societies, it is because of the anti-Islamic approach that has been adopted by the rulers. Whether it is Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan or Iraq. The Americans have double standards, and they like monarchs and military regimes. That is why these people rule Muslim countries. But I'm sure the new resurgence movements in all Islamic societies have gained ground. That is why this Taliban phenomenon has erupted…rightly or wrongly…but that is very much there.
Even Taliban are no democrats. They rule Afghanistan only through arms…
I don't think so. They have been enjoying the control of 95 per cent area of Afghanistan and they have unarmed persons fighting Afghan warlords.
What about the situation in Pakistan? What do you think of the war? What turn is it likely to take for Pakistan?
No outsider has ever conquered Afghanistan; this is the history of Afghanistan. Twice, when the British were ruling the world, and were the super powers, they lost out in Afghanistan. The USSR has also seen how its socialism and communalism and its geography changed once it entered Afghanistan. Americans know very little about Afghanistan. They will sooner or later repent entering Afghanistan.
So are you suggesting that the Americans will suffer, like the Soviets did, inside Afghanistan?
Of course.
What about Musharraf?
Yes, Musharraf invited the Americans, and they are here. So, I don't think it will be long before the Americans and Musharraf are thrown into the dustbin of history. Despots like Musharraf get a place only in the dustbin of history. |
