AT a seminar held recently in Lahore the subject was ‘What kind of Pakistan do we want?’ Indian leadership had settled the question with regard to India long before independence by deciding in favour of a democratic, federal and secular state.

Jinnah deliberately allowed ambiguity to prevail on the matter as he did not want the demand for Pakistan to be distracted by a debate on the subject. But once Pakistan came into being he made his view clear: Pakistan would be a democratic, secular state, within which there was only one nation, with citizens, regardless of their religion, enjoying equal status and rights.

By consistently disowning the religious parties which advocate a theocratic state, the Pakistani voter, devout Muslim as he is, too has rejected their programme. That over the years the country nevertheless has been turned into a semi-theocracy may, therefore, appear paradoxical but it is not altogether surprising.

Partly, it was a heritage of the communalist politics of pre-partition which gathered momentum under Ziaul Haq who, needing a justification for his usurpation, found it in a self-appointed divine mission to ‘Islamize’ Pakistan. He left behind not only the Hudood ordinance and separate electorates but what is known as the Zia legacy. The ‘legacy’ is a frame of mind as well as a set of anonymous heirs, holding positions of authority in various branches of the establishment. Most of the country’s existing Islamic laws and measures are the result of their thinking and decisions and not of popular demand or of parliamentary debate and discussion.

Thus in order to go forward, the country must go back to the beginning, back to Jinnah and Iqbal. It needs to go back from ‘Islamization’ to Islam, from a fossil-Islam of ritual and power- seeking ulema, to the Islam of brotherhood, tolerance and justice, from Rabbul Muslimeen to Rabbul Alameen, to democracy where laws are made and unmade by parliament and not by a Shariat court dispensing the Divine word.

Gen Musharraf’s speech of Jan 12 and subsequent actions have set the direction. These are measures he had proposed when he took power two years ago but one need not cavil at the fact that they were not vigorously pursued straightaway. Nor should we feel mortified that the government is acting now under the pressure of external events. What matters in the end is that Pakistan is at zero point again and beginning to move in the right direction..

The external and internal components of Gen Musharraf’s programme of redressal are organically interlinked. The very welcome reform of the madressahs must, therefore, take place as part of an overhaul of the educational system as a whole.

The writ of the government must be established and ‘all organizations in Pakistan will function in a regulated manner,’ the president declared. This is a resolution, as well as an avowal, and all credit to him for his candour. This is possibly the hardest part of the job if it means, as it should, that all state organs, including the country’s intelligence agencies, must function within the ambit and limits of the law. The latter’s involvement in domestic politics, thoughtlessly initiated by the democratically-elected Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, cannot be allowed to continue in any way or for any purpose, if democratic institutions are to function properly and take root.

Gen Musharraf has taken or announced a number of important measures designed to strengthen democratic institutions such as empowerment of women, joint electorates, an educational qualification for parliamentary candidates. These are desirable as such and have been widely welcomed by the thinking sections of the population. But there is surely force in the contention that moves of this kind cannot, and should not, be introduced by fiat, but through established constitutional procedures.

True, at present there is no parliament that could adopt the necessary constitutional amendments. However, there is no reason to believe that major political parties would not be amenable to come to an understanding on the matter with the government before the October election. The continuity of Gen Musharraf’s reforms would be best guaranteed and his own position and authority reinforced by an understanding with the major political parties and their accredited leaders.

The external part of the general’s programme deals with Kashmir and the current crisis with India. India is understandably agitated over the attack on its parliament. Gen Musharraf was quick to condemn the attack and right also to curb the Lashkar and Jaish who may or may not have been behind the attack in New Delhi but make no secret of the fact that they back the jihad in Kashmir.

The jihadis fought with zeal and sacrificed lives but they did so at the cost of international sympathy for the Kashmiri cause and deflected the indigenous Kashmiri struggle from its true purpose. Islamizing Kashmir, forcing Kashmiri women to wear veils, is no part of the Kashmiri freedom struggle. In putting a halt to their activities, Pakistan is not going back on its commitment to Kashmir but, on the contrary, putting the issue back in perspective as a struggle for self- determination.

At present, a great deal of diplomacy, ours and that of the major powers, is being deployed simply to persuade India that talks on the issue are in its favour. The bottom line in Kashmir is not that India does not want to give it up but that the Kashmiris want to decide their own future. The end of jihad will show that the Kashmiri movement has its own momentum.