New stirrings in Kashmir

AN election has taken place in Indian-held Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) which several international observers have called reasonably free and fair. Voter participation is said to be 44 per cent. A new government there has taken over.

The radical part of this government is the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), which swept the polls in the valley. The star campaigner in this election was a young lady whose father is the head of the PDP and who is now the chief minister of the state in a shaky coalition with Sonia Gandhi’s Congress.

These stirrings are non-events over here. We are of the view that an election in Kashmir is meaningless because it is a choice between two sets of subservients to New Delhi’s overlordship; a popular government in Srinagar with an easy relationship with the All Parties Huriyat Conference (APHC) is the least desirable of outcomes: good Kashmiris are expected to remain in frozen confrontation with India until they receive the right of self-determination. The foreign office spokesman last Monday declared that “the solution to the Kashmir problem is in allowing the Kashmiri people to exercise their right of self-determination”.

Be that as it may. Now, supposing you were a reasonably politically conscious, articulate and educated Muslim Kashmiri living in the valley burdened with supporting a family of whom one or more members have been killed in skirmishes between the freedom fighters and the Indian army; with an innocent relative holed up in jail for years under the draconian Indian anti-terrorist TADA regulations; supposing you were fed up with the corruption, fecklessness, cynicism and flaccid subservience of the government of Farooq abdullah who was in power for the past 15 years or so; and now you were given an opportunity to throw this mess of corrupt ineptitude out of office and bring in a party whose election manifesto is the unconditional release of political prisoners, disbanding the Special Operations Group which has wreaked havoc in the state and pledged to repeal the dreaded Prevention of Terrorism Act (TADA) — what would you do?

You have two options: either sit back at home, boycott the election as suggested by the APHC and wait for the promised plebiscite to take place, or make the best of a bad situation by booting out a patently corrupt, unpopular government. Granted the PDP government may or may not be able to deliver their programme — after all they are in shaky coalition — but, do we not as ordinary humans live on hopes of a slightly better tomorrow? Remember traditional trade, business and tourism in Kashmir have come to a standstill. And the main source of employment today for young men is to join the anti-freedom fighter force sponsored by the Indian army.

Ask yourself a further question. The Indian government might think that a vote binds you to acceptance of the status quo. It is free to think whatever it likes, but does it really bind anyone to accept what it does not believe in? If you are compelled to do business with someone considered objectionable or unsavoury, does it change your basic opinion of him, unless, by deeds, he can show himself to be a different person? To want a lessening of immediate hardships is certainly no vote for the Indian occupation.

In a territory under military occupation, the quisling — the native agent or satrap of the occupying power — is usually a more hated entity than the power itself. One has only to remember the eponymous figure of Major Quisling, the renegade Norwegian officer in World War II whom posterity will remember for cooperating with an enemy long after the enemy is forgotten. Farooq Abdullah is a quisling. The same may not be true of his son Omar who fought and lost the election to the PDP. The sins of a father do not necessarily devolve on the progeny.

This election has thrown up the charismatic figure of Mehbooba Mufti, the vice-president of the PDP, which is headed by her father, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed. The party won all 16 seats in the valley. The National Conference of the Abdullahs was completely routed in the valley. Can we see no significance in this mandate?

Eight hundred people are said to have died in this election. Violence today is the norm in this most beautiful of all lands which was known for centuries for its industrious, peaceful people. That the Hurriyat Conference boycotted the election is understandable. One would not expect them to take oaths under the Indian constitution to fight the election, but they could have been more supportive of a process that promises change and new options for the Kashmir valley. The APHC risks being marginalized if it chooses to ignore the new political scenario.

Civil life under military occupation presents grave moral and physical dilemmas, which people living in the comfort of Pakistan can seldom appreciate. To what extent can you continue to oppose, or cooperate with, an occupation force? These questions are not easy to answer.

In the interests of objectivity some historical aspects of Indian rule in J&K need highlighting as we in Pakistan tend to look at Kashmir (as in India) through myths, set notions, fixed ideas, national propaganda and chauvinism.

Firstly, excepting the valley of Kashmir and two or three tehsils of Jammu, the remaining part of Kashmir is inhabited mainly by non-Muslims who in any case would be willing to be part of India. J&K is not by any means one homogenous cultural, linguistic, ethnic or religious entity. That these diverse territories are lumped together is one of those accidents of history.

Secondly, no occupying power ever permits a free and fair election. Much residual civic and political freedom is obtainable by the Kashmiris under Indian rule. Obtaining this freedom does not mean that Indian rule is accepted.

And, finally, even in the valley there was no significant resistance to Indian occupation until 1987 when elections were rigged in a wholesale manner by India and its quislings. It is important to remember that in the summer of 1965 when Pakistan sent ‘agent provocateurs’ to stir up trouble in the valley, little or no cooperation was received from the locals. Pakistan misread the situation then as it misreads it today.

The upshot of it all is that for the new coalition governments in Kashmir and Pakistan (to come) the first step is to get to know each other. Pakistan has lost contact with the present generation of valley Kashmiris. India commits a mistake by preventing opinion makers on both sides from meeting one another. In truth Pakistanis know very little of the real situation obtaining in the valley. Cross meetings of parliamentarians and newspaper people in Srinagar and Islamabad would be a step in the right direction. Such interaction will create bridges of understanding which meetings between the two countries at an official level will not.

In recent days the US ambassador in India has taken upon himself to hang every act of terrorism onto Pakistan’s peg. Would he care to explain how terrorism occurs in his own country? Would it be fair to attribute acts of terrorism to US intelligence agencies? Terrorism needs no state sponsorship to occur either in Pakistan or in the United States. The utterances of this senior diplomat have been unfortunate and indiscreet.

Wisdom lies in giving peaceful means a chance in Kashmir. A Kashmir uncrowded with militaries and enjoying a path leading to real autonomy on both sides might promise a better future than the past.

E-mail address: murbr@isb.paknet.com.pk

A passionate liberal

Paul Wellstone, killed in a plane crash Friday, was a passionate, unapologetic liberal in the rich tradition of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labour Party and U.S. senators like Hubert H. Humphrey, Walter F. Mondale and Eugene McCarthy. He fought in the Senate for the people of Minnesota, the poor, the young, the old, the workers, farmers.

Wellstone followed his beliefs without fear of political risk or whether he might anger his own Democratic colleagues. Recently, he was the only Democratic senator in a tough reelection race to vote against President Bush’s Iraqi war resolution. But he had opposed U.S. military action in the Gulf War too. And he crossed Democratic President Bill Clinton by voting against the 1996 Welfare Reform Act.

This streak of activism and independence was nothing new for Wellstone. As a Carleton College professor, he taught the politics of protest and practised what he preached. Wellstone was on the line with striking Hormel meatpackers and protested in front of a bank that foreclosed on local farmers. After his stunning upset election to the Senate in 1990, the left-leaning magazine Mother Jones called Wellstone the first 1960s radical to serve in the Senate.

But he was not just a knee-jerk partisan. With Sen. Pete V. Domenici, a Republican from New Mexico, he fought for better mental health insurance. Domenici was so distressed by the news of Wellstone’s death that he could not comment for a television interview.

Wellstone’s death, along with that of his wife and daughter, three aides and the pilots, was a shock, much as similar deaths of politicians in the past, flying hither and yon in small planes, and often in bad weather, to keep the commitments of a busy schedule.

Paul Wellstone was a bright star within the fading constellation of true political independents who have an abiding desire to make life better for constituents and are willing to sacrifice short-term political gain in favour of winning lasting benefit.—-Los Angeles Times

Court of public opinion

UNTIL a few weeks ago several politicians and columnists were arguing that Mr Nawaz Sharif, Ms Benazir Bhutto and some of their colleagues, accused of crimes and disqualified, should have been allowed to contest the recent elections, and that the question of their guilt or innocence should have been left to the “court of public opinion” to decide. The implication is that if the public had re-elected them and given their respective parties substantial victories, their innocence would have been established. But if the public had ignored them, they could have been deemed guilty.

Most of the commentators who have argued in this fashion have assumed that had these politicians been allowed to face the people, the latter would have found them innocent, or their alleged crimes much too trivial to fuss about. But they agree also that the governments of both Mr Sharif and Ms Bhutto were blatantly corrupt, and even if the two of them did not personally steal public money, they did act lawlessly in other ways. The diagnosis and the prescribed remedy do not match.

Just as puzzling is the likelihood that a great many people in the country would have been pleased to see Sharif and Bhutto back in the arena and would have rewarded them with electoral success even while knowing of the corruption attributed to them. If this reading of the people’s likely behaviour is correct, should the state of mind from which they would have acted be called “opinion,” personal preference, bias, loyalty, passion, romance or some other such thing?

In certain contexts, opinion is a conclusion regarding the merits of a proposition, personal conduct, performance of a mission, or a proposed course of action, formed after due consideration of relevant factors. This is the process by which a judge, for instance, arrives at his opinion: witnesses appearing for the accuser and the accused give testimony, they are cross-examined, opposing counsel interpret the evidence produced and the law applicable to the case. The judge hears and considers all this and then forms an opinion. Higher-ranking officials go through a somewhat similar process in evaluating policy proposals or the performance of their juniors. This is how one reaches considered opinion. But that is not necessarily, or even generally, the way public opinion is formed.

Let it be noted that a great many people in the world (not just in Pakistan) have no opinion on any number of issues of public policy. Allow me to recall a case in point from my own experience. I visited a baker (“nanbai”) in Lahore in November of 1968, when a revolt against Ayub Khan’s rule was gathering strength. As he worked on my order, I asked him what he thought of the on-going rebellion. He looked up and said in colloquial Punjabi (difficult to render into English) that he did not think of politics and minded his business, which was baking.

Several of my friends, exceedingly well educated professionals, know that Ms Bhutto’s government was both corrupt and incompetent, but they would still vote for her if they could. Why? They just like her and feel they don’t have to justify their preference. Theirs is a non-rational (not to be confused with irrational) choice. They are biased in her favour.

Take the case of the “panchayats” that have recently ordered certain women to be paraded naked in the village streets with scores of men viewing them. Many of us believe this was an utterly disgraceful thing for these village elders to have done. But evidently they did not think so. Nor, apparently, did the men who watched the women and voiced no protest against this barbarity. They and we have obviously different notions of propriety.

Mercifully, God has given each one of us a mind of his/her own that can be made capable of thinking. Thus, as individuals and as groups, we may or not be like-minded on any given subject. It is likely that, except with reference to a very small number of salient issues, there will be many “publics” and as many opinions, and in some cases there may be no public and no opinion. This holds regardless of the amount of education persons, whose opinion you elicit, may have had. After examining the same evidence and hearing the same arguments, judges of the American or Pakistani, or any other, Supreme Court form different opinions.

Returning to the public, where do people get their answers to questions that we loosely call their opinions? They get their biases, prejudices, preferences, attachments, and even notions of right and wrong from the family, peer groups, the mosque, and the larger community in which they live. They absorb these attitudes of mind almost effortlessly. Preferred ways of thinking and informed opinions reach a small percentage of our people from another source, that is, the professional opinion makers — preachers, politicians, and the media people (both print and electronic).

Preachers, unless they are also politicians, are mainly concerned with saving our souls and helping us secure a reasonably comfortable place in the hereafter, and we can, therefore, leave them out of this discussion. A minority of politicians does make opinions, more often than not, on a single issue: for instance, Mr Jinnah on the desirability of the struggle for Pakistan (his advice on all other matters having been ignored); Mr Bhutto on the rights of peasants and workers to personal dignity and political participation; Sindhi and Pakhtoon “nationalists” on the issue of provincial autonomy; and the Islamic parties on the Muslim people’s obligation to establish an Islamic state. For the most part, however, politicians are perceived as self-serving propagandists, and their rhetoric does not leave enduring impressions with their listeners.

Newspapers, known in the Anglo-Saxon tradition as the “fourth estate” (nobility, aristocracy, and the clergy being the other three), now supplemented by radio and television, are explicitly in the business of making opinions: they inform and advise their readers. But, once again, owners, editors, and reporters of newspapers, as well as other media people, have their own biases and preferences, not to speak of their interest in profits, with the result that they convey to their readers and listeners different versions and interpretations of the same events. In other words, they, too, make not one but several opinions on any given set of issues.

It is probable that the newspapers in Pakistan, put together, do not print more than a couple of million copies (not all of which are actually sold). A small fraction of our urban population reads newspapers in libraries, barber shops, and other public places. A relatively small number owns, or otherwise has access to, television sets. It may be fair to say that between five and ten per cent of our people have regular exposure to news and interpretations offered by editors and columnists. In other words, 90 per cent of them remain untouched by the media people’s exertions. Gossip and rumour should be counted among the more notable “opinion makers.”

It will bear re-statement that in most cases opinions do not result from mature consideration. They are formed hastily, and often the so-called “opinion” is actually an expression of one’s bias or a non-rationally chosen preference. Should these findings depress our spirits? No, because it is very much the same way in many other societies, both developing and advanced.

Public opinion does exist and it is quite reliable on the question of whether or not a government, and the politicians who operated it, have done well in meeting the people’s needs. Even an illiterate man knows police oppression, lawlessness, deprivation, and humiliation when he sees or experiences them. Those who think that democracy means government by public opinion on issues of policy are in error. A good government may not follow the “shifting gales of popular opinion” from day to day. But democratic governments must be responsive to their people’s needs and aspirations.

What is then the place of bias, prejudice, preferences, passions, attachments, and conventional wisdom in democratic politics? These states and attitudes of mind, no less than professed values, make a society what it is. Is a democratic government to follow, ignore, discourage or resist them? If it follows them, it will mirror society, and in some democracies the government does so. But what is its duty when the people’s passions and prejudices are in conflict with their professed values?

It stands to reason that in such situations the values acclaimed as desirable, the ones by which we aspire to live, should prevail. They have come to us from religion, our historical experience, our constitution, contact with other peoples and civilizations, and the evolving conscience of mankind. As I have submitted on previous occasions, the function of law is not only to meet felt needs but also to civilize society. This does not mean that we launch a crusade against all non-rationally chosen preferences and attitudes. Many of them are harmless. They are to be resisted only when they work to deprive other persons of their legitimate rights and interests. It cannot be overstated that the non-rational element — for instance, love and passion-can be, and often has been, one of the most creative forces in human affairs.

Forget public opinion as a court that may judge allegations of criminal behaviour, but rely on it to evaluate the performance of representatives in serving their constituencies. Beyond that politicians and rulers should heed public opinion on issues, when they can find it, but it is also their obligation, and that of “opinion makers” to educate it. This has to be an on-going endeavour, for there is no finality to the improvement of one’s mind.

The writer is Professor Emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts, USA. His e-mail: ssyed@lrrc.umass.edu

So near and yet so far

TWENTY-FOUR days have elapsed since the voters went to the polls, and there is still no sign of any definite political arrangement among the various parties to arrive at a workable consensus.

Apparently there are still deep-rooted differences between some of the political leaders, and efforts at compromise have failed in spite of rib-nudging and achingly unspontaneous asides from government functionaries.

In the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) rank and file, many successful candidates have not yet gotten over their euphoria over winning their seats, and don’t appear to be in any particular hurry to head for the Margalla hills. But the MMA leadership has somewhat softened its approach and is now not insisting on their choice of prime minister.

The key player in this political drama, however, appears to be Makhdoom Amin Fahim, who has been projected as some sort of folk hero. He was certainly the choice for the prime minister’s slot when a cross-section of the public was quizzed in a random television survey.

But there is a great deal of inconsistency in the PPP’s position. One day we are told that he is forming a government along with other like-minded parties opposed to the military regime and the Legal Framework Order (LFO). The next day news comes down the pike that the PPP is willing to reconcile its differences with the PML(Q) in the interest of democracy. And then a day later the public is informed that the PPP is prepared to sit in the opposition. Things look to be so near, and yet they are so far.

Too much is being made of his chance meeting with the president Musharraf when they exchanged pleasantries while aides were wafting frankincense over their game pie. But there is evidence to suggest that the good patriarch of Hala had a couple of weeks earlier set the ball rolling by requesting the government to spring Asif Zardari, who had already been incarcerated for six years, and to dismiss the cases against Benazir Bhutto. So far, the president has been quite rigid on his stand and is purported to have said that the couple will not be able to return to Pakistan for at least five years.

But while the parties continue their game of musical chairs, with Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan yanking up the gramophone, the government, on its part, has clearly indicated that the inaugural session of the National Assembly would be convened in the first week of November. There have also been newspaper reports specifying dates on which the speaker, deputy speaker and the leader of the house are to be elected. Meanwhile, an important legal hitch created by the Lahore High Court, staying the results on reserved seats, was removed when the court withdrew the order.

A procedure for the election to various offices has already been detailed by the law minister, Dr Khalid Ranjha. The president would be sworn in before the members of the National Assembly. The law minister also has up his sleeve a method for solving the problem of selecting a prime minister, in case the political parties cannot find a way out of the impasse. There is, apparently, a provision for run-off vote in the Assembly Rules.

But while the government, on the one hand, is giving the impression that it is the political parties that are delaying matters, it is exercising its controversial legislative powers without inhibition by hurling ordinance after ordinance like a trench mortar on the field of battle.

So far in the month of October, 36 ordinances were issued ranging from subjects such as The Protection of Breast-Feeding and Child Nutrition Ordinance 2002 to The Official Secrets Amendment) Ordinance 2002. This is proving to be a major irritant to some of the politicians. Chief of Jamaat-i-Islami Qazi Hussain Ahmed has expressed his ire in no uncertain terms and stated that these missiles are hindering the formation of the government.

President Musharraf has on more than one occasion spouted the cliche about good governance, and expressed the hope that the elected representatives would carry on the good work. There can be no denying the fact that there has been progress during the last three years.

However, building up foreign exchange reserves and protecting the exchange rate of the dollar in order to boost exports which make the rich richer, is all very well.But it should not be at the cot of ignoring the problems of the poor and the downtrodden. The primary duty of any government is to protect the lives and property of the weak and the helpless, and if they cannot do that they have no right to rule.

Meerwalla was only the tip of the iceberg. But it took one brave journalist and one brave lawyer to identify the heinous act, and the law did the rest. But there are Meerwallas in every nook and corner of the country. Will the newly elected representatives do more than just send a cheque whenever a girl is ravished on the instructions of a panchayat and wish the feudal system will jut blow away? Or will at least one of them think and behave like Lee Kwan Yew, elder statesman and former prime minister of Singapore, and decide to do something about it?

Good governance is important, and it would certainly help if there was a sense of continuity in the reforms. It was jolly decent of Zubaida Jalal to win a National Assembly seat, so that she does not have to queue up for a PML(Q) Senate handout. She was swept into the hideous maw of national education by the president and to everybody’s surprise emerged not only unscathed, but with laurels. Regrettably, she is no longer being mentioned for the prime minister’s slot.

Another knight of the round table, who should be retained at all costs, is Shaukat Aziz, a foremost financial personality of his generation. Besides being highly thought of in the World Bank and the IMF, he has performed some exceptional work in his own country. Whenever he appears at a news conference he always manages to exude a breezy confidence and contrives to suggest a life of unruffled serenity. If, as is believed, the PML(Q) has cut down the president’s request for Senate seats from four to two, it is anybody’s guess which will be the second minister to be retained.

Congo’s chance of peace

ALL but lost in the din of international debate over Iraq, one of the world’s most devastating and destabilizing conflicts is nearing a moment of decision — one in which even a small share of U.S. and United Nations attention could be decisive.

Since the mid-1990s more than 2 million people have perished in the Democratic Republic of Congo, victims of a multi-sided civil war as well as collateral disease and famine in a nation the size of Western Europe. Up to eight neighbouring African states have been sucked into the fighting, and African leaders — foremost among them South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki — have had to accept the fact that dreams of modernizing the continent will go nowhere until Congo is stabilized.

Mr. Mbeki has now convened a crucial round of peace talks in Pretoria intended to broker a comprehensive political settlement between Congo’s government and its principal domestic adversaries. He could use some help.

In some ways the prospects for a Congo settlement are looking brighter than ever. In the past few months almost all of the foreign troops in the country have been induced to pull out — most notably, those of Rwanda, a small but powerful neighbour, which completed the withdrawal of its 23,000 soldiers two weeks ago.

The problem is that Congo’s weak government, headquartered in Kinshasa, lacks the strength to impose its authority on the eastern territories, a continent away, that Rwanda recently vacated. As a result there has been an explosion of fighting among rival local militias, prompting threats from Rwanda’s martial leader, Paul Kagame, to send his army back.

But then, according to a report by a U.N. panel this past week, Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe haven’t really left Congo. Having used their troops to pillage the countryside and steal its diamonds, lumber, cobalt, copper and coltan, all three countries have left behind networks to continue the plunder. The official report said the networks include some members of Congo’s government, as well as senior officials in all three neighbours, and “will not relinquish voluntarily” the control they have built up.

The aim of the Pretoria talks is a political deal among the Kinshasa government of Joseph Kabila, which is supported by Zimbabwe, and the two largest domestic rebel groups, one of which is backed by Rwanda and the other by Uganda. The proposed accord would create an interim government including representatives of all three parties, with the idea that general elections would be held within two years.

—The Washington Post