Following is the text of speech by H.E. Wajid Shamsul Hasan on the occasion of British  Pakistan Youth Council (BPYC)'s Anniversary Dinner and Talk on 'War Against Terror or War Against  Pakistan' at Hayat Regency  Birmingham on 1st June 2010.  Other speakers:  Senator Syed Faisal Raza Abidi, Political Secretary and Advisor to President Asif Ali Zardari and Senator Muhammad Idrees Khan Safi of (FATA).  

 

 

Distinguished Members of the Parliament,

Ladies and Gentlemen!

 

At the outset, I would like to warmly welcome our distinguished Parliamentarians to the United Kingdom.

 

I also wish to congratulate Mr. Kamran Ishtiaq and his colleagues, representing the British Pakistani youth, for organizing the event and making excellent arrangements. 

 

I can understand why you have chosen the topic “War on terror or War on Pakistan?” The sentiments of our youth in the UK are not very different from many in Pakistan.

 

I am always happy to note that sitting so far away and not even born in Pakistan our second and third generation Diaspora in the UK are extremely concerned about their roots. It is nothing but a proof of their deep affection, which comes naturally to them.

 

It is long and chequered history of how we have come to be what we are today—standing at such a tragic pass. As I address you—I must stress that I am not a happy man. My eyes have got dried of tears; my heart is surfeit with pain. No doubt terrorists are striking at will as has been witnessed in the recent bloodbath in Lahore or other parts of Pakistan.

 

I would like to share with you my views as to why the terrorists and religious extremists have flourished in the country during the past three decades. Before I raise my finger at pinpointing foreign players who choose our people to become fodder for their guns in their war of strategic interests, I would prefer to discuss with you about the enemy within—as manifested in the power troika—comprising of praetorian, judicial and civil bureaucracy-- that hijacked Quaid’s Pakistan established by the power of vote—to make it a country run by coteries of vested interests.

 

Not only this power troika subverted nation’s march to our destined goal of a modern democratic model for the entire Muslim world as envisioned by the Quaid, but the worst crime was committed soon after his death. This troika gradually made inroads into corridors of power. It converted Quaid’s liberal, progressive and egalitarian ideology into quasi theocratic-praetorian concept that became convenient tools in the hands of dictators to subvert democracy whenever it pleased them.

 

As such Pakistan today is more so a victim of the enemy within. Had we translated Quaid-e-Azam’s vision of Pakistan into a reality soon after its establishment, our country by now would have been a prosperous, progressive modern democracy ensuring greatest good of the largest number.

 

Quaid’s vision of Pakistan was very clear:

 

In his Pakistan all its citizens were to be equal—to be Pakistanis first and last-- irrespective of their caste, creed or colour.

Pakistan was not to be a theocratic state. In his Pakistan religion was not to have anything to do with the business of the state. Religion was essentially to be a personal affair.

He had pronounced it categorically that in his Pakistan poor would not become poorer and rich richer. Rather, every one was to have equal opportunities. He had made himself very clear by declaring that “he would not have a Pakistan in which rich would exploit the poor.”

He had assured that his Pakistan will have a federal constitution that would guarantee more autonomy to the federating units than the autonomy enjoyed by the states in the United States of America.

Great visionary that he was, he had forewarned both the military and civil bureaucracy not to harbour any ambitions. They were to be servants of the people and subservient to the command of the elected government of the day.

Being a barrister and one who believed in the independence of judiciary, his views on the supremacy of the Parliament as a sovereign institution were uncompromising. He would not be a party to any institution—be it judiciary, military or civil bureaucracy—to over ride the sovereignty of the Parliament that represents the general will of the people.

He stood for the freedom of the press. He was, however, opposed tooth and nail, over the abuse of freedom of expression and warned that no one should be allowed to use it as a licence.

 

Quaid’s death and assassination of his trusted lieutenant Liaquat Ali Khan following an attempted military coup against him set in motion the reverse devolution of power from elected representatives into the hands of those who held the gun. As such the normal process for democratisation was derailed; a progressive ideology was replaced by obscurantism, sectarian, ethnic and parochialism-- all fostered by the unelected rulers who used these forces to divide and undermine the political power of the people.

 

Sadly, Pakistan of today is not the one that Quaid-e-Azam would have wanted it to be. If you were to ask me one single question: how Pakistan got embroiled in so many problems today—my simple answer would be because of the betrayal of Quaid’s ideology.  However, over the years the situation has been worsened by other contributory factors including Pakistan’s geo-strategic position.

 

Pakistan that started from scratch on 14 August 1947 with virtually no infrastructure and no financial resources today has risen to be a nuclear power and a lead country, not just among the Muslim nations but on the world stage.

 

It must be reiterated here that while its creation was a singular achievement of one democratic leader through vote, the credit for it becoming a nuclear power goes to yet another democratic leader Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who preferred to be judicially murdered rather than surrender Pakistan’s nuclear programme.

 

Not only that, the most advance missile technology for making Pakistan’s defence impregnable and  to carry the war heads to their specified targets was entirely due to the efforts of the twice elected Prime Minister martyred Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto.

 

I agree with all among you who think that Pakistan has suffered from injustices and discrimination. Starting from dishonest division of the Sub-Continent to the labelling of it as a country at the verge of collapse and hotbed of terrorism and violent extremism, Pakistan has been maligned through the international media.

 

We all know well and it has also been publicly admitted by US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton a few months back that Pakistan is suffering today because of the seeds that were sown in 1979 by the US and other Allies. She admitted that after the objectives were achieved in Afghanistan in 1989 through the ten years long Jihadi struggle Pakistan was left in the cold to face the spill over of a neighbour seething in civil and tribal war. Afghanistan’s political, economic and social turmoil has had a devastating bearing on Pakistan and its socio-economic and political fabric. We still host nearly three million Afghan refugees.

 

While United States has accepted its role in our miseries we should apportion some blame for ourselves also for allowing the situation to reach this stage. If the same nation that built the country from zero in 1947, why it could not control a bunch of radicals, who infested our society at its roots. Neither the successive regimes nor the people themselves, who are the biggest victim of the militants, made the required efforts to prevent the situation.

 

I squarely hold the post-1977 dictators responsible for the ongoing crisis. Both Zia and Musharraf in their quest for acquiring political legitimacy danced to the tunes played by their foreign masters and sold the country’s national interests and compromised its sovereignty.

 

Gen Zia, in order to perpetuate his rule, wanted to convert Pakistan into a theocratic state representing a particular school of thought with no relevance to Quaid’s liberal ideological moorings, while Musharraf used duplicity to hood wink the West by running with their hare and hunting with the Jihadi hounds. Not the least, one would also question the morality of the Western democracies that in pursuit of their vested interests readily joined to sup with the devils for the sake of expediency-- throwing to winds their commitments to make world safe for democracy.

 

As a result, Pakistan has been placed permanently in the eye of the storm. It is blamed for all terrorist incidents. Anywhere and in any part of the world if anything goes wrong fingers start pointing at Pakistan even though the culprit may have acquired other nationality, may have been living for ages outside Pakistan, may have a number of accomplices of different nationalities but media and foreign governments would only pick on Pakistan.

 

The acts of Faisal Shehzad, a US citizen and the perpetrators of 7 July 2005 London bombings, who were born and bred in the UK, were labelled as Pakistanis just because of their origin. Both the US and UK failed to recognize that the problem of radicalisation existed on their own soils and not in Pakistan. It is only last week that US President Obama spelled out in his National Security Strategy the need to tackle the radicalization on the US soil.

 

I quote here a text message that I received the other day. It would seem a comic digression but it is somehow ironically relevant in the present environment. The message goes somewhat like this and I quote: A man sees a dog about to bite a lady. He kicks the dog to death. Local newspaper reported: “US citizen saved a lady from a ferocious dog.” Man who saved the lady informed the reporter that he was not a US citizen. So the report changed. “Foreign hero saved a lady from a dog”. Man again corrected the reporter and told him that he was actually from Pakistan. The next day headline said: “Terrorist attacks a local dog”.

 

I am deeply distressed by the Guardian’s exposure of the plans of English Defence League, led by non-white Guramit Singh, among other indigenous British nationals, to attack the Muslim immigrants. I am particularly concerned at their slogans in various demonstrations naming ‘Pakis’ and their motives to attack Muslims in London, New Castle and Bradford. Pakistani community should see the notorious design behind this kind of a perception. Any incident may prompt our community’s reaction although it may not be aimed against us.

 

Pakistani Diaspora should not fall in this dangerous trap. They should act with a great responsibility and caution. Our community leaders should engage with the British Police constructively and make sure that they also should not be misled by mistaken identities. Similarity in the facial features of Pakistanis with those of the other communities from the Sub-Continent could be exploited to blame our Community Members.

 

These are difficult times and we must show resilience and prudence to pass the test. My humble advice to our youth in Britain is that overly tolerant British society offers them ample of opportunities. They should avail them and concentrate on education, strive to get into diverse professions including political arena, media, Government departments, IT, Medicine, Engineering and Social Work. This will help not only strengthen our community’s bonds with the local people in this great country but also help boost our image.

 

In my view, the question should not be ‘War on Terror Or War on Pakistan?’ Rather we should put this question to ourselves; “Why Pakistan is suffering today and what can we do to bring peace, progress and glory to our Country’?”

 

Shouldn’t we seek our salvation and security in restoring the ideology of Quaid’s Pakistan. Not only that, we require a total commitment from the civil society, the Parliament, the military, the civil and judicial bureaucracy, the media—to defend Quaid’s liberal and progressive ideology in the same manner and spirit as is the secular ideology of Mustafa Kemal Ataurk safe-guarded in Turkey.

 

Last but not the least, it was a democratic government under President Zardari and Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani backed to the hilt by Pakistan army under Army chief General Kiyani that has taken upon itself the challenge to defend Quaid’s Pakistan. Pakistan army’s valiant defence of the country to eliminate terrorism and support democracy will be recorded in letters of gold for all times. Pakistanis are resilient and determined and they shall not give up until the country is cleared of the scourge of extremism.

 

I hope the Members of British Pakistani Youth Council would be helpful in spreading the message of peace and tolerance in this country and present themselves as a role model to their brothers and sisters to play their rightful role in the British society.

 

Thank you,