Amidst various conspiracy theories circulating in the country, these days, Karachi City Nazim Mustafa Kamal has made some startling observations, which needs to be addressed properly by all patriotic elements. At a dinner hosted by the businessmen in Karachi, on July 4, in honour of President Gel (retired) Pervez Musharraf, Mustafa Kamal advised the businessmen not to take their money away from Karachi because “if they return after six months or one year the region and its geography may not be the same.”
The remarks of the city nazim, made in the presence of President Musharraf and Sindh Governor Isharatul Abad, are highly intriguing, if not downright conspiratorial. None of them, however, criticised or condemned the nazim for having made these remarks. Rather, President Musharraf, in his speech, supported the observations of the city nazim and had his own advice for the politicians and others.
Surprisingly, nobody asked the city nazim to explain what did he meant by the warning that after six months or one year Karachi’s geography or even that of the region, may change. Does the city nazim know about any plan or is he privy to such an option being fine tuned somewhere but would not share it with the public other than warning his wealthy supporters to refrain from taking their money out of Karachi?
Of late, the Karachi city nazim has been receiving high profile foreign visitors who usually do not call on as low in the political hierarchy as a city nazim or town mayor. Recently, the nazim paid an extended official visit to the United States, where he was received by officials in an unprecedented manner for a visiting mayor.
During President Musharraf’s visit to Karachi, a columnist tried to give the impression that the Punjabis do not like President Pervez Musharraf because he was the progeny of an Urdu speaking family. Surprisingly, neither President Musharraf nor any other stalwart from Karachi has so far condemned the sinister design to create chasm between the people of Pakistan on the basis of ethnicity.
The fact remains that during the first six years of Pervez Musharraf’s rule, majority of the people of Punjab supported Pervez Musharraf, considering him to be a saviour, who meant Pakistan’s progress and prosperity and the emancipation of the common people. The mass support in Punjab, coupled with JUI-F and MQM support in Urban Sindh, emboldened Musharraf to aspire to lead the country till 2016.
But, when the 7-point programme announced by Musharraf in 1999 and other promises remained unfulfilled, an overwhelming majority of people decided to vote against the political forces supporting Musharraf’s leadership. The people turned against Mushrraf’s leadership primarily because by the end of 2007, there appeared a huge trade deficit, unprecedented shortages of food, breakdown in electricity, gas and other basic needs and sky rocketing inflationary trends, largely due to extravaganza and massive increase in administrative expenses. This happened despite billions received from the USA, a sharp increase in foreign remittances by the expatriate Pakistanis and large-scale investment from abroad, notably from the Gulf states. Shockingly, in a well-endowed agricultural country, large areas lacked basic food items, such as wheat flour and sugar while prices of everything shot up as world oil prices raced upwards. Slow-down of the economy and business and a fall in revenue further burst the bubble of prosperity claimed by the Musharraf regime.
Earlier, at the end of their recent visit to Pakistan, almost all US senators referred to the present government as an “interim” government, implying that the present coalition government, forged following the February general elections was a mere “stopgap” arrangement. Do the echelons of power in the USA think that the present dispensation in Pakistan is for a brief period, a democratic interlude, before another long spell of despotic rule? Meanwhile, Pir Pagara has also stated that either presidential rule or martial law has become a necessary option to bail Pakistan out from the present situation.
One hopes that our present leaders are mature enough not to fall in the traps laid down by the inimical forces because already the country has suffered incalculable harm when some of our leaders blindly followed the policies dictated by some outside powers to further their own designs in this region. What was the end result? After achieving their objectives, those powers left Pakistan in the lurch.
Further, about the martial law interludes, the less said the better. Any how, one would like to remind the readers of an observation made by the leaders of former Soviet Union when one of our chief justices of Pakistan paid an official visit to that country in the 1990s. The Soviets informed the CJP that after constantly monitoring the situation in Pakistan over a period of time, they have reached the conclusion that whenever jackboots take over power in Pakistan separatist tendencies raise their head in some regions of the country. However, after restoration of democracy such notions vanish and wither away after some time.
Since the country has remained under the direct or indirect rule of the jackboots for almost 44 - 45 years during the last 50-year period, already much damage has been done to the federation. One therefore hopes that wiser counsel shall prevail and the jackboots shall refrain from any further adventure.
If one links Karachi city nazim’s statement and US senators bid to call the present set-up (in Pakistan) as “interim” with Dr Qadeer’s recent disclosure regarding involvement of the top brass in the transfer of centrifuges, one comes to the conclusion that there appears to be a calculated move by inimical forces, who want not only to destabilise the present government, but also the state itself.
One has faith that the patriotic forces in the country would foil all such conspiracies. However, this would require unity in their ranks followed by dedicated and devoted efforts to pull the country out of the morass in which it has been landed by the stone-headed vision and pro-elite policies of the previous government.
