PPP-Musharraf cooperation: meeting point still exists, says Ramay

The following is the edited text of Mr Haneef Ramay’s Dawn Dialogue interview:

QUESTION: Let’s start from your latest thinking about Punjab. When the province was being criticised by other provinces, you had written a book to present Punjab’s point of view. It was quite helpful in blunting the assault. But now, in a departure from your previous stand, you have started talking of a division of Punjab. This sounds like a defence counsel becoming the prosecutor. How do you explain the change?

ANSWER: Yes, it’s an important question. When I wrote “Punjab Ka Muqaddama”, it was not just Punjab’s case that I was fighting. Actually, I had articulated the whole issue of provincial autonomy. Unfortunately, as a matter of general practice, we don’t nip an evil in the bud, and then we have to pay the price. I think when the 1973 Constitution was unanimously adopted, the best course for the then government would have been to go the whole hog and grant autonomy to the provinces, whose contours had been very explicitly explained. And since the then prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, himself came from a smaller province — Sindh — it was a very appropriate time to allow the provinces to work within the parameters laid down in the Constitution. But, somehow, this was not to be. The provinces felt that even when a Sindhi leader was at the helm, most of the powers rested with the federal government and what was mentioned in the Constitution was not being followed.

The governments of Balochistan and the NWFP felt upset because they were being denied their due rights. I, as chief minister of the biggest province, also came to the conclusion that though Punjab was blamed for encroaching upon the rights of the other provinces, in actuality it was the federal government which was denying the provinces their rights and Punjab was no exception.

Then, when I became a senator, I felt it my duty to highlight the question of provincial autonomy and let everybody know that it was the federal government, not the Punjab, which was taking away the rights of the provinces. I realized that there was little change in the authority of the centre no matter which province the prime minister came from. When the Constitution was framed, the federal government had made an unwritten promise to revise the concurrent list of legislative powers after 10 years. When the time came to honour the commitment, the country was under Gen Zia’s martial law, and no one bothered to revise the list.

It’s a strange fact that the 1935 Government of India Act and the 1956 Constitution of Pakistan contained an exclusive list of rights of the provinces, but in the so-called federal constitution of 1973, there is no such list. If one looks around and sees what is happening in the various provinces, one shivers at the possible shape of things to come. The NWFP, for example, is going in a separate direction from the rest of the country. I have just been in Balochistan and participated in a workshop on provincial autonomy. The general feeling there is that Balochistan is only politically connected with Pakistan; socially and economically, the people of Balochistan say, they are more a part of Iran than Pakistan.

In Sindh, the water dispute has poisoned the situation to an extent that Sindhi leaders are calling for international arbitration to settle the dispute. This clearly means that the provinces are now unable to settle matters between themselves. The writ of the federal government, if at all it is there, works only in Punjab.

Having seen all this, I have come to the conclusion that the sense of deprivation in the three smaller provinces can only be stemmed if Punjab is divided into three parts. What I am proposing is not a novel idea nor should anyone be alarmed by it. In India, as you know, they have divided East Punjab into three provinces according to their needs. In more than 15 European countries, the population is less than 10 million each and they have many provinces. There is no hard and fast rule on how much population should have a separate province. Everything depends upon the situation and requirements of the people. We have 150 million people. In principle, we can easily make 15 provinces. But the beginning has to be made here in Punjab. Then, it’s for Sindhis, the Balochs and the people of the NWFP to decide whether they want to keep their provinces in their existing form or divide them for the convenience of their people.

Q: If a division of Punjab is a solution to the problem, you should have proposed it at the time when you were chief minister and familiar with inter-provincial frictions and governance problems.

A: I became chief minister in 1974, only six months after the approval of the 1973 Constitution. At the time everybody was euphoric about the quantum of provincial autonomy provided in the Constitution. I was present in the National Assembly the day the Constitution was adopted. I saw with my own eyes how Mr Noorul Amin was crying with joy and regret, saying had the quantum of autonomy given in the 1973 Constitution been granted to East Pakistan, Pakistan would have never been dismembered.

As chief minister, that was not the right time for me to raise the issue of dividing Punjab. I had to give the Constitution a chance to work and address the problems of the country.

My experience as chief executive of the mighty Punjab was that like other federating units, this province was also deprived of its rights. After resigning as CM when I became a member of the upper house, I talked of the rights of the provinces, but nobody listened to me. Instead, I was arrested and the then attorney-general Yahya Bakhtiar, who belonged to Balochistan, told the Lahore High Court that the most serious crime I had committed was that, as a senator, I was propagating provincial autonomy.

Q: Will your party back your point of view on the division of Punjab?

A: Let me tell you very frankly that the concept of Punjab’s division is my personal view, based on my personal experience. I have put forward the idea for consideration by all parties. It’s not the official stand of the PPP. I feel that it’s my duty as an elder politician to frame these sensitive issues boldly.

Statesmen have to go by the requirements of a given situation. Let me give you an example. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was known as a militant nationalist for his slogan that we’ll fight India for one thousand years. But when he came to power, the same leader had to sign the Simla Pact, a pact that brought peace between Pakistan and India. This is called statesmanship.

Q: You have mentioned Mr Bhutto. You worked with him as well as his daughter Benazir. How do you compare the working and thinking of the two leaders?

A: Both Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Ms Benazir Bhutto are products of their times. Mr Bhutto was active in the 70s and BB is a leader of the 21st century. The times have changed. In the 70s, many poor countries were looking for a model of development either in the Soviet Union or China. They believed that steps like nationalization of industries and land reforms were the answer to their problems. But times have changed. The Soviet Union has disintegrated, and even the Chinese have introduced the principle of free market in their economy. If BB today follows the same old mechanics of change, she will not be doing her duty.

But both should be seen as leaders with an understanding of the world and the various currents of change around us, well- versed in international affairs. So, ZAB and BB should be considered as sharing the same principles, but differing in methods.

Q: All party decisions are taken by Ms Bhutto, based in the UAE for the past four years, as a result of which lengthy discussions by party leaders here lose their relevance. Do you think this is the right way of decision-making by a party which calls itself democratic?

A: I think much is needed not only to democratize the polity of Pakistan but also to democratize the working of our political parties. When I fell out with Mr Bhutto, one of my complaints was that there was a great lack of democracy within the party, and I believe that if there is no democracy in our parties, these parties can’t bring or respect democratic institutions when they come to power. I accept that we lack strong democratic institutions even in the PPP. Still, Ms Bhutto sitting outside Pakistan is more connected, more active and more vigilant than many leaders in Pakistan. She constantly consults her lieutenants in the party and there are frequent meetings in Dubai and London where all local, provincial and federal matters are openly discussed. It’s a pity that she is not being allowed a safe return to Pakistan. This fact belies those who claim that they have installed “genuine democracy” in Pakistan.

Q: There was a time when Mian Nawaz Sharif’s blood boiled at the very mention of the PPP which he held responsible for the dismemberment of the country. But now your party is an ally of Mr Sharif’s PML(N) on the ARD platform. If the party can show such large-heartedness for an arch rival, don’t you think it will be doing itself a service by opening its doors to leaders like Farooq Leghari, Dr Mubashir Hasan and his other colleagues in the PPP(SB), the PPP-Patriots and Mr Mumtaz Ali Bhutto?

A: Democracy works in a certain atmosphere. Tolerance and, more than tolerance, acceptance of each other is the essence of democracy. Differences of opinion should not be allowed to lead to enmity. And everyone should be free to have his / her point of view. From 1993 to 1997, when I was speaker of the Punjab Assembly, I constantly and persistently urged the PPP and the PML to accept each other and lay the foundations of a two-party system in the country.

I am sorry to say that nobody listened to me. Nawaz Sharif’s father and brother were arrested during PPP rule and when Nawaz Sharif came back, Benazir’s husband, Zardari, was arrested, who is still in jail even when Nawaz Sharif has been thrown out.

I still hold the same view and wish and pray that both Benazir and Nawaz Sharif have learnt this important lesson of history — of mutual tolerance and acceptance.

I think history has brought us to a point where we need to form a reconciliation commission on the lines of South Africa. We must initiate a dialogue with India, but before that we must initiate a dialogue with ourselves. The fact is that we have created a country, but we have yet to become a nation. We can become a nation through an agreement on respect for the Constitution at all costs.

We need national reconciliation at many levels. For example, between the federal government and the provincial governments; between the political parties and the armed forces; between the political parties themselves; and between the various groups of a single political party.

Q: The PPP got the highest number of votes in the last general elections and was in a position to form governments, in cooperation with other parties, in Islamabad and Sindh. But not only the party failed to get power, it also appears to have been eclipsed and relegated to the back benches by the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal. Why in your view the party leadership could not exploit its electoral as well as parliamentary strength?

A: It’s a matter of great satisfaction for me personally that the PPP polled more votes than its rivals in the recent elections. I believe had Ms Bhutto been allowed to lead our political campaign, we would have fared even better. Unfortunately, there is a great contradiction in Gen Musharraf’s attitude. On the one hand, he untiringly says that Pakistan should be a liberal, progressive, moderate, tolerant and modern Islamic state and on the other the only political party which could have been his best ally, the PPP — he is reluctant to come to terms with it. Then, the PML-Q has inherent misgivings and mistrust of the PPP.

The present leadership of the PML-Q wants to bring in the MMA, calling it their natural ally. But that doesn’t suit Gen Musharraf. Under the present circumstances, if Mr Jamali’s government is answerable to Gen Musharraf, Musharraf himself is answerable to (US President) George W. Bush. The provincial governments of the NWFP and Balochistan, which are dominated by the MMA, are causing a lot of alarm to the Americans.

If the MMA is drawn in at the centre, that perhaps would be the end of the “Bush-Mush” friendship.

I believe that Gen Musharraf being a pragmatist would soon realize that not only Pakistan’s but his own survival depends on bringing in liberal and progressive forces, rather than avoiding them. The sooner he takes such a step the better.

The first step in this direction can be the immediate release of Mr Asif Zardari, who has been behind the bars for the last many years, without any case having been proved.

Q: Whatever your views, your party leaders say that the PPP is not willing to join hands with Gen Musharraf for he is a military man. Critics say that for a party which had given the country its first civilian chief martial law administrator, this amounts to the kettle calling the pot black.

A: No. I don’t agree with you. This is not so. When ZAB took over from Yahya Khan, the only possible way in which this could be done was by becoming CMLA. It was not Mr Bhutto’s desire to become CMLA; that was the only way he could take over. The PPP can’t be blamed for that.

When Musharraf took over, Ms Bhutto had welcomed it and repeatedly said that the general would have to come to the PPP to find a way out. That was a clear sign that the PPP could go along with him if he was serious to restore democracy. I think it was after the referendum that the distance between the two sides widened and began finally to look unbridgeable. But I still think that a meeting ground between the PPP and the general may be found if Gen Musharraf is genuinely interested in making Pakistan a liberal, progressive and moderate country.

Q: You worked with Ayub Khan, then with the late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and subsequently joined the PML of Pir Pagara. You also made a failed experiment of running your own party. Then in Gen Zia’s period you once said to this reporter that Pakistan needed a leader who stood somewhere between Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran and Kamal Ataturk of Turkey, representing two extreme views. Those days you were planning to extend support to the military dictator. Now that you have been with the PPP for the past several years, should it be assumed that you see the same qualities in Ms Bhutto which you had discovered in Gen Zia?

A: I never cooperated with Gen Zia. He clearly indicated to me that he would hand over power to the PML. At the time I was chief organizer of the PML and, against his wishes and of the PML, I founded the Pakistan Musawaat Party. Then, despite great pressure from him that I should appear as a witness against ZAB in the Lahore High Court, I refused to do that. My party, the Musawaat Party, had boycotted the partyless elections, although Gen Zia had wanted it to contest.

I met Zia after he had thrown out Mr Junejo, and gave him the idea that if he was sincere with Pakistan and Islam, he should give the country a system which was in between the Islamic revolution of Iran and Ataturk’s secular system in Turkey. I tried to convince him that this was how we could create a modern Islamic state envisioned by Iqbal and outlined by Mr Jinnah in his August 11, 1947 speech as the first president of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan.

I could see that Gen Zia did not want to do that. And I never became a part of his team.

If there is a sincere understanding between Gen Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto, there is a chance to achieve that goal. Gen Musharraf has been talking of a progressive, moderate Pakistan while Ms Bhutto has also been talking of the same goal.

Mr Haneef Ramay was interviewed by Ashraf Mumtaz

Urgent relief needed

IBRAT this week takes up the devastation caused by incessant rains in Sindh and points out that around 60 people have died, hundreds of others have been injured and thousands of houses have collapsed in the province. The rains have particularly played havoc in the districts of Badin and Tharparkar. Similarly, due to flood in Nain Gaj, the villages of the Kachho area in Dadu district have been cut off from rest of Sindh.

The paper writes that the rains have also exposed the poor working of the district governments whose representatives have done nothing to reduce the people’s sufferings except offering consolation to them. The collapse of the water supply and sewerage systems has led to an outbreak of gastroenteritis and other diseases in different parts of the province. Even life in the biggest city of the country, Karachi, has been repeatedly paralyzed by the rains. According to the daily, the deplorable situation requires relief measures on a war footing.

Sindhu adds that the rains have also caused irreparable losses to the growers of Sindh who had previously been hit by an acute water shortage. In upper Sindh, the rains have washed away paddy saplings. This loss may be unbearable for small farmers who should be provided compensation by the government.

Referring to the fresh controversy about water releases downstream Kotri, Kawish says that Punjab has again insisted in the Indus River System Authority meeting that the water must be taken from the share of Sindh and not from those of other provinces. The paper comments that Punjab tends to forget that water release downstream Kotri is a part of the 1991 Water Accord on the basis of which Irsa was established. It concludes that the dispute should be permanently settled.

Tameer-i-Sindh writes that a proposal to lift the ban on recruitment in government departments is under consideration of the Sindh cabinet. However, it laments, there are also reports that different component parties of the provincial governments are demanding their share of the vacancies which are going to be announced. The daily terms this trend as the murder of merit and says that jobs must be provided on the basis of merit and no political interference should be allowed in this respect.

Hilal-i-Pakistan writes that the taking up of reti bajri (sand and gravel) from the Malir area of Karachi has proved to be an ecological disaster but the practice continues under the patronage of the local police. The daily suggests that an effective ban should be imposed on the practice to check environmental degradation in the area.

State of media freedom

THE Bangladeshi ruling elite, it seems, is poised to impose further restrictions on freedom of expression and the free flow of information.

Information Minister Tariqul Islam informed Parliament on July 15 that “the government is contemplating to reintroduce the Dramatic Performance Act (DPA) to check obscenity in cinema and drama”.

The English colonial rulers had imposed the DPA in 1876 in the backdrop of frequent staging of dramas unmasking the ruthless repression of the people of the Sub-continent, particularly by the British indigo planters and the East India Company officials. The colonial rulers found such public performances detrimental to the imperial interest. So they enacted the DPA to stop “scandalous, defamatory, seditious or obscene” public performances. However, the law was scrapped in Bangladesh in 2000, following decades of agitation by performing arts activists. Now, again the government of Khaleda Zia is planning to reintroduce the repressive law.

In another development, a parliamentary standing committee has recently okayed a private members’ bill, The National Parliament, Committees and Members (Privileges and Powers) Bill, 2003 seeking, along with many other things, to impose a ban on making public several categories of parliamentary proceedings.

The bill in question sought “six months of rigorous imprisonment or fine of Tk 50 thousand or the both” for any person making public “the contents of the proceedings of any debate taking place inside a (parliamentary) committee and the excerpts of the proceedings of any committee meeting prepared to place, or placed, in parliament.” The bill also seeks a ban on publishing of “any decision, proceedings and reports of the parliament which has been adopted secretly” and so on.

As regards harassment of media-men, Mr Mahfuz Anam, editor of one of the leading Dhaka-based English-language dailies, has recently expressed his concern about ‘some disturbing moves against the media’. In a front-page signed article on July 11, Mr. Anam said: “Within the last three weeks warrants of arrests were issued against five editors and one executive editor on defamation charges.

Five of the six warrants against editors came from cases lodged by ministers or people holding such rank. In addition to the arrest warrants, defamatory and utterly false and fabricated charges were made against the editor of this newspaper from the floor of parliament (by a treasury bench leader)..”

Mr Anam has rightly called the phenomenon ‘disturbing’. But what is ‘equally disturbing’ is many in Dhaka argue, that Mr. Anam has observed in the same piece, that “a free press is still one of the brightest aspects of Bangladesh’s democracy” and he “proudly tell(s) the world about it”.

Democratic elements in Dhaka find the observations disturbing because they neither find Bangladesh’s state machinery democratic nor do they accept that its media enjoys the desired level of freedom. It’s argued that the ouster of the autocratic regime of General Ershad failed to change the undemocratic state machinery, thanks to the inherent limitations of the two major players in Bangladeshi politics, the BNP and the AL. They only changed the form of government, simply replacing the word ‘president’ with prime minister in the constitution.

And as regards media freedom, the Anam’s critics argue that there has been no democratization of the centuries-old colonial laws. More than two dozen anti-democratic colonial laws controlling the media have been retained, and fresh laws enacted that further limit the people’s right to freedom of expression.

To give an example, the first government of Khaleda Zia (1991-1996) re-introduced some undemocratic provisions of the special powers Act, 1974 which the non-party caretaker government of Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed had scrapped. But the Khaleda Zia government revived the provisions later, by way of inserting these into the penal code and the CrPC. Besides, her government got enacted another law, providing fine and jail terms for ‘defaming’ the president, the prime minister and the speaker.

Hasina’s Wajed’s AL, which was in power between 1996 and 2001, changed, secretly, the ‘oath of affirmation’ required for newspaper publishers, under which they now require to commit to an undertaking that bars publishing of anything ‘against the interest of the government.’

As regards free flow of information, the situation is no better. The ministers are still constitutionally obliged, by their oaths, not to disclose any information they come across while discharging their ministerial duties. The public servants are equally protected, by their conduct rules, against dissemination of public information.

It is true that all undemocratic media laws are not applied by the government/s all the time. Still, they are always there hanging like a sword and ready to come down on the media any time.