MQM(P)-PSP squabble

The recriminations that followed last week’s press conference by PSP chief Mustafa Kamal in the presence of MQM-Pakistan leader Farooq Sattar continue with some outsiders jumping in to the fray on the latter’s side as defenders of democracy. The two parties since have been accusing one another of misrepresenting what was decided between them. According to PSP, they had agreed to have a common manifesto and to contest the upcoming elections under one platform and electoral symbol, while the other side insists it wanted only a political alliance, not merger with PSP, and that it did not, never would, agree to trade its name for a new one. There of course is nothing unusual about any two parties haggling over terms of an alliance or whatever the nature of desired relationship.

But things took a dramatic turn when Farooq Sattar later held his own presser, and among other assertions, pointed the finger at the ‘establishment’ for pushing him towards a merger, saying political engineering will not be tolerated; politics should take its natural course. That is when the unification scheme came to be unraveled as the work of political engineering by the powers-that-be. The PSP, already seen as an establishment project, would not want to be singled out for culpability on that score. It has been reminding Farooq Sattar how he changed his tune after being released from the Rangers custody. Thus, both have come out into the open about being pushed to make course ‘correction’. And those involved have acknowledged it, too. In a TV interview, Director General of Rangers Pakistan, Sindh, Major-General Muhammad Saeed termed the statements by the two parties as sensational and a matter of concern, adding “we are doing everything to bring peace and stability to Karachi. …Every initiative that keeps the political violence out of Karachi should be taken”.

Now that the suspicion has officially been confirmed, the question that merits scrutiny is whether it amounts to undermining the political process. Many think it does. They held the same view when Altaf Hussain was the unquestioned leader of the MQM. Their argument being: one, it was a reality. It, indeed, was and is a reality though created – in the bad old days by the Zia regime to counter the PPP’s influence – by the same establishment that now is trying to redesign it. Second and more important is the reasoning that since MQM has large electoral support base, wins sizeable number of seats in the Sindh and National Assemblies, any intervention in its affairs equates with messing with the democratic order. The argument has conditional validity. In no civilized polity, winning an electoral mandate can become a licence to harm other people’s lives. The tactics the party employed – until forced to make a clean (how clean is arguable) break with its London-based founding leader Altaf Hussain – to maintain its hold over Karachi and other urban centres in the province, have been anything but democratic. Intimidation and violence has been its chosen method to keep the media and all others in line. Unfavourable reporting on its activities invited physical attacks, with the result that media was too afraid to say or write anything that could evoke the wrath of its leader. Even non-coverage of his rants at party gatherings could spell trouble. Last year, for instance, annoyed with three private TV channel for not airing his address – under court orders due to a seditious speech he had made earlier – to party workers he demanded to know of his followers “why don’t you break these channels?” He had no hesitation to boast either about his ability to take lives. In one of his rambling speeches to party men he told his opponents he would have a gunny bag (body bag) ready if they had a person (who could challenge his power) to put in it. Over the last decade an estimated 15000 people have lost their lives to violence in Karachi. Extortions and kidnapping for ransom became a routine matter. Various criminal groups as well as militant wings of different political and religious parties were involved in these crimes but a lion’s share belonged to the MQM. Unfortunately, despite this violent track-record, the former MQM supremo still has his apologists who defend him in the name of the very democratic values they claim to uphold.

The law enforcement agencies could not touch the party until lawlessness in Karachi became unbearable, and the provincial government willy-nilly empowered the Rangers to carry out across-the-board security operations in the city. The situation came to a head when Hussain delivered a blistering tirade against the country. Addressing his supporters via phone, this is what he said: “Pakistan is cancer for the entire world. Pakistan is a headache for the entire world. Pakistan is the epicenter of terrorism for the entire world, who says long live Pakistan? It’s down with Pakistan.” And the followers of this ‘democratic’ party responded with chants of “down with Pakistan”. He also had a message for the paramilitary force: “I would put the DG Rangers on trial, will openly hang him and for three months will keep his dead body hanging to burn and dry.” That hate-filled outburst and the London police’s investigations into the murder of an MQM dissident, Dr Imran Farooq, which led to the revelation of Hussain receiving funds from the Indian intelligence agency, RAW, left little choice for the Pakistan-based leadership but to distance itself from him and form MQM-P. Many among them are the same people who destroyed Karachi’s peace at their ‘former’ leader’s behest.

The Rangers operation has restored Karachi’s peace to a large extent. But it needs to be consolidated, too. In its new incarnation the MQM-P surely is within its rights to choose its path forward, so is the PSP. Continued friction between them, nonetheless, can damage peace as well as their respective prospects in the upcoming elections. As regards the establishment’s resort to political engineering, it is hard to digest considering the many distortions it has been creating in the political scene. In present case, though, it is a genuine stakeholder in normalising Karachi. Hence its efforts to bring the two groups together can be seen as a benign intervention rather than an attempt at subverting the democratic process.