WITH thousands of frenzied volunteers of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) converging on Ayodhya, the Muslims living in Uttar Pradesh may shortly have to face a barbaric communal outburst similar to what Gujarat had to pass through last year. Indeed, by the time these lines appear in print, the holocaust may have already begun as the VHP has set October 17 as the D-Day for starting its agitation for the construction of a Rama temple at the site of the demolished Babri masjid.

While at the root of the agitation is the VHP’s Hindutva ideology, the apathy of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in New Delhi is equally to blame. As in 1992 when the Congress government in New Delhi remained unconcerned about the ‘rath yatra‘ headed by fanatics like Lal Krishna Advani which ultimately led to the destruction of Babri Masjid, the government is doing nothing to intercept the flood of Hindu fanatics making its way to Ayodhya.

Mulayam Singh Yadhav, chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, who by his lower caste, is outside the mainstream of Hindu religion, has held BJP and Mr Vajpayee responsible for the crisis building up in Ayodhya. In a statement he accused BJP and the prime minister of “plotting to create a Gujarat-like situation in his state.”

Mr Vajpayee’s government is trying to take shelter behind constitutional technicalities maintaining that law and order is a state subject and it is the responsibility of the state authorities to foil any threat to communal peace. Like 1991-92 situation when New Delhi made no attempt to stop the volunteers who were carrying consecrated bricks to Ayodhya to build a temple after demolishing the Babri Masjid, the thousands of volunteers now making their way to Ayodhya to meet the deadline of October 17 are proceeding unhindered.

The consequences of what happened in 1992 are a part of India’s recent history. The demolition of Babri Masjid pained and infuriated the Muslims all over India and elsewhere, Hindu fanatics went on a rampage against the Muslim community. Several hundred Muslims were killed in the riots which erupted in many parts of India. A similar situation may arise if the VHP and its Sangh Parivar partners manage to make their rendezvous in Ayodhya and embark on their declared objective of starting an agitation for the construction of a Hindu temple.

What is particularly reprehensible is the role of the central authority in the crisis. Mr Mulayam Singh Yadhav, apart from exposing the apathy of Mr Vajpayee’s government has also called upon the cadres of his own party to foil the attempt of the Parivar to disturb communal peace. He appears convinced that Mr Vajpayee and his government are working for the destabilization of his government which assumed office barely two months ago.

The BJP may well wish to do so to reinforce its position before the elections which are due to take place in Delhi and four other states later this year. It may hope to project its image as a strong national party.

However, Mulayam Singh Yadhav appears confident that the VHP or BJP would not be allowed to get away with its designs. He seems determined that his government would do all it can to abide by the Allahabad High Court’s verdict to maintain the status quo in Ayodhya. He has assured the VHP that he would not deal with its plans with a heavy hand but he has also expressed the hope that he would be reasonable and have the necessary consideration for “the plight of the poor people before marching to Ayodhya.” The routes to Ayodhya have been sealed and the train services diverted.

Paradoxically, Mr Vajpayee has also been warned by the VHP which is one of his own coalition partners not to interfere in what is happening in the UP. The VHP leader Pravin Togadia criticizing the measures taken by Yadhav’s administration to maintain communal harmony has declared that his party would “brook no hurdles in the way of its peaceful bid to seek blessings at Ayodhya.”

At the same time he has warned Prime Minister Vajpayee that the country could plunge in communal violence if the VHP plans are disrupted.

With characteristic ‘double-speak’ Mr Vajpayee has called upon the people to “trust the VHP” despite the developments in the UP. Not unexpectedly, the official spokesperson of the BJP, Mr Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, has also echoed the same rhetorics while referring to the VHP’s agitation and said: “...If the VHP says that its programme will be peaceful, we should trust them.”

The developing situation in Ayodhya has sent signals of alarm for Muslims in many other parts of India. Mr Nisar Ahmad Ansari, secretary of Jamaite-Ulema-i-Gujarat, a Gujarati Muslim group, has asked the government not to forget Godhra and the massacre of the Muslims in many parts of Gujarat last year and that they should take effective steps to ensure that peace continues to prevail. However, one cannot be too sure. Reports from Ahmedabad say that thousands of Hindu activists, defying a government ban, are packing buses and trains headed for Ayodhya. Of course the officials maintain that action is in hand to divert the bus and train routes and prevent the gathering at Ayodhya from taking place. Incidentally the Hindus from Nepal are also reported to be coming to Uttar Pradesh to join the bands of militants marching to Ayodhya. Around 50 of them have been detained on their entry by the authorities in an effort to prevent them from proceeding to Ayodha.

The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (which is now the ruling coalition in New Delhi ) has celebrated its four years in office on October 13 as the crisis over Ayodhya is building up. Party leaders boast of being the only “pure non-Congress government” to remain in power for so long. Yet there are signs, howsoever faint, of fissures developing in the 20-party ruling alliance. The spokesmen of the rival Congress Party also maintain that the NDA has survived only because of its weak allies (and) which is not something to be happy about.

Public polls do indicate a drop in Mr Vajpayee’s (and BJP’s) popularity. A poll conducted by the widely circulated India Today and MARG between July 4 and August 6 last indicated that the BJP and its allied parties would secure no more than 242-252 seats in the Lok Sabha in the general elections next year as against 310 seats which they have at present. The journal is of the view that the polls showed a “fiercely competitive bipolar divide” (BJP and Congress) in the country and that the “Congress is gaining all over the country mopping up many more of the NDA losses compared even to some of its allies.”

However, neither the BJP nor the Congress would perhaps be in a position to gain a majority by itself and would need to make coalition with other parties.

For Pakistan the outlook poses a dilemma: Mr Vajpayee’s image as a leader has distinctly improved in the years he has been in office. If he comes to power again, the popularity that he personally commands should also place him in a position to carry through with any plan for conciliation and normalization. On the other hand, Ms Sonia Gandhi, even if she emerges as the more likely candidate for the office of prime minister, does not appear to command a comparable personal following. Even otherwise, the Congress had a history of not being able to work with the leadership in Pakistan during the years that it was in power.

TALKING to newsmen on his arrival after a week-long tour of the United States and Canada at Lahore International Airport, President Musharraf said, “I was astonished to see the news item attributed to me, calling the present assemblies ‘immature’”. He deplored the misreporting and admitted that he had criticized the ‘system’ but not the assemblies.

To understand the ‘system’, if we have any, and why it is still ‘immature’ more than 50 years after independence, we must begin at the beginning. Pakistan opted for parliamentary democracy because of our long association with parliamentary institutions and continuity of the principle of responsibility.

After nine years of hard work and bargaining, Pakistan succeeded in framing a constitution and decided in favour of the parliamentary form of government. Two years later, when not even one election had been held under it, President Mirza, in collusion with Ayub Khan, the Commander-in-Chief, abrogated the constitution, imposed martial law and derailed the system.

From June 8, 1962, to March 25, 1969, Pakistan was governed under the 1962 constitution promulgated by Ayub Khan, the new president and chief martial law administrator, on the strength of the mandate acquired by him through a dubious referendum held on February 14, 1960. Towards the end of this period, the country witnessed scenes of unprecedented chaos and upheaval following a popular movement to overthrow the regime and scrap the system imposed by Ayub Khan. Before leaving the presidency, Ayub Khan had to demolish his constitutional structure brick by brick. Martial law was imposed for the second time since independence.

Ayub Khan was the first to stab Pakistan’s democracy in the back. It was he who committed the original sin. It was he who inducted the army into the politics of Pakistan, and set a bad precedent. Others merely followed his example.

After the break-up of Pakistan, on April 12, 1973, at a special session of the National Assembly, 137 members appended their signatures to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. After authenticating the Constitution, President Bhutto remarked: “The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is the constitution of the people of Pakistan and they are best suited to speak for it. The document is their property and they are best suited to protect it”. In a similar address on the radio-TV network, Mr. Bhutto said: “Today we bid good-bye finally and for all times, to the palace revolutions and military coups which plagued Pakistan for nearly two decades.”

Fate willed otherwise. On July 5, 1977, General Ziaul Haq, Chief of Army Staff, staged a military take-over, arrested Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, elected prime minister of Pakistan, dissolved the assemblies, suspended the Constitution and derailed the system. Earlier, on the eve of the 1973 Constitution, Mr. Bhutto said: “Today we have passed through the dark tunnel, and I see the golden bridge”. Tragically, what he saw was not the golden bridge but an optical illusion and a mirage. Six years later, on April 4, 1979, to be precise, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, prime minister of Pakistan and architect of the 1973 Constitution, was taken to the gallows on a stretcher and hanged.

Subsequently, Pakistan made judicial history when a bench of nine Judges of the Supreme Court validated the imposition of martial law and dissolution of parliament by COAS, General Muhammad Ziaul Haq and empowered him to amend the Constitution, knowing that it did not have the power or jurisdiction to circumvent settled constitutional procedures and allow a state functionary to tamper with the Constitution. In the years to come, Zia was to amend the Constitution wholesale, and cite this judgment of the Supreme Court as a defence against all accusations of abuse of power. Zia, like Musharraf, used the sword supplied to him by the judiciary to disfigure the Constitution and strike at judicial power.

Zia lifted martial law on January 1, 1986, and revived the 1973 Constitution but only after the newly elected assembly had agreed to give him some of the powers he wanted to retain. When I went to see him at the presidency in Rawalpindi, he was clad in the same cavalry uniform in which I had first seen him but he no longer exhibited strength, vitality and self-confidence. He still possessed all the perquisites and trappings that go with the office of the head of state but something was missing.

There was not a scrap of paper on his table and he appeared most definitely underemployed. On may 29, 1988, Zia derailed the system once again, dismissed Mohammad Khan Junejo, prime minister, ostensibly for incompetence and lack of interest in Islamization, but in reality democracy had produced unintended results not to the liking of Zia. There cannot be two suns in the sky. Junejo had to go.

In October 1999, after 11 years of civilian rule under Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, the army struck again and arrested Nawaz Sharif, the elected prime minister. Assemblies were dissolved. The Constitution was suspended. General Pervez Musharraf was the new self-appointed ruler. The Legal Framework Order, the bedrock of his political dispensation, which he wants to impose on parliament, has brought about fundamental changes in the 1973 constitution and made the president a powerful executive. The centre of gravity, the locus of power, had dramatically shifted to the presidency.

The substance of power now vests in the president who is also the chief of army staff. He is not elected in accordance with the constitution, is not accountable to parliament, refuses to vacate his office as army chief and doff his uniform.

The military has cast a long shadow over politics in Pakistan even during the period of civilian rule. Repeated army interventions in the politics has been a recipe for disaster. We lost half the country in 1971 as a direct consequence of the imposition of martial law in 1958. It has thwarted the growth and development of parliamentary democracy and destroyed whatever little faith people had in their political institutions. What is worse, it has eroded people’s faith in themselves as citizens of a sovereign, independent and democratic country.

For the last 50 years or so, the armed forces never really went back to the barracks. Will they ever? Not in the immediate future, it seem. Every now and then one sees sovereignty graciously extended to the people when its need is realized. It is left in their hands only when it is innocuous or is felt to be so. Like Mussolini, our military rulers regard parliamentary democracy as a ‘farce’ and the idea of sovereignty of the people a “cardboard crown”. Regrettably, in Pakistan we still live in those Victorian days when as Disraeli said, “the world was for the few, and for the very few”.

A few days after the 1999 coup, General Musharraf’s spokesman insisted: “While others may have tried to hang on to power, we will not. We will make history”. General Musharraf agreed: “All I can say”, he assured a television interviewer in January 2000, “is that I am not going to perpetuate myself... I can’t give any certificate on it but my word of honour. I will not perpetuate myself”.

Later in 2000, Musharraf went a step further and said, he would respect a Supreme Court judgment that stated he could remain in office for just three years. In June 2001, however, he performed a U-turn, and reneged on his promise. Now he insists on staying in power both as president and as army chief for an almost indefinite period. No wonder, his promises are not trusted. His words are not believed.

Today Musharraf is locked in a serious conflict with parliament. Dissolute courtiers, corrupt politicians, sycophants, out of work mercenaries, ready to profit from national dissensions, are egging him on to gird his sword like Cromwell and challenge parliament. The issue before the nation is autocracy vis-a-vis republicanism. It is true that Nawaz Sharif, the ousted prime minister, had a distaste for what we call our parliamentary liberties. He was no paragon of virtue either but his removal by Musharraf was certainly not a victory for democracy or the parliamentary system. On the contrary, as subsequent events have amply demonstrated, it was a triumph of Bonapartism over all that people have ever wanted and struggled for. Long years of hard struggle will be required to reverse it.

Today democracy is in limbo. Parliament is paralyzed. The opposition languishes in torpid impotence. The Constitution is a figment, accountability is a farce. In return for retaining his moth-eaten dictatorship, Musharraf has made compromises with corrupt politicians, fugitives from justice, unprincipled weak-kneed triflers, charlatans and mountebanks guilty of corruption. Viewed in this backdrop, how can any democratic system strike roots, or mature or even survive in the country.

Today politicians face a difficult choice: they can either collaborate with the military rulers, thereby losing all their credibility, or they can insist that the generals call it a day, restore parliamentary democracy and go back to the barracks. The future of parliamentary democracy will depend on the choice they make. One thing is clear. We live in a democratic age. Democracy or freedom of choice is not a luxury. It is intrinsic to human development.

Military dictatorships are aberrations in a world of global markets, information and media. There are no longer any respectable alternatives to democracy; it is part of the fashionable attire of modernity. How can parliament give way to an arbitrary system? Time is on the side of democracy and time will win. This twisted political system imposed on the people of Pakistan will not work and has no chance of survival.

I have seen the rise and fall of civil and military dictators from a ringside seat. When I last met Ayub Khan, his good star had finally deserted him. Destiny had dropped him at last. I saw him enter the twilight which saw his departure in tears from the presidency he once bestrode like a colossus. Why follow in his footsteps? Why follow in the footstep of Zia? Why repeat the same mistakes again?