| 18 January 2004 | Sunday | 25 Ziqa'ad 1424 |
Leave Basant alone
A lack-lustre speech though it was, but President Pervez Musharraf had the satisfaction of finally addressing a joint sitting of parliament yesterday. He appeared unruffled, but at times the ARD's "Go Musharraf go" chorus seemed to be jarring on his nerves. Nevertheless, more than a year after they were elected, a majority of parliamentarians listened to the president and cheered him. In a country that lacks democratic traditions and where heads of state and government have generally had an unceremonious exit from office, it remains to be seen whether Saturday's proceedings will turn out to be seminal.
The turning point came with last month's accord with the MMA on the LFO. This secured a two-thirds majority which the generals needed to ensure the passage of the seventeenth amendment bill - the ARD's stance being of no consequence in terms of the constitutional requirement. The big issue is whether parliament's acceptance of Gen Musharraf as president and the incorporation of the LFO into the Constitution will lead to a new beginning. Regrettably, Pakistan's history does not provide us with a ready 'yes' answer to this question.
President Musharraf is not the only serving general to have addressed parliament and to be both head of state and army chief; Ziaul Haq, too, had this dubious distinction. As in the case of Gen Musharraf, Zia's coup d'etat, too, was upheld by the judiciary, and a parliament elected on a non-party basis indemnified all his actions. Among the changes Zia made in the Constitution was the power he assumed for himself to dismiss an elected assembly and government. It is ironical that his own protege, Nawaz Sharif, had article 58-2(b) repealed. This only goes to show that laws made by manoeuvring a parliamentary majority do not last long.
The president's speech contained some moral exhortations, but no policy guidelines, for it was essentially a ceremonial occasion. But it did refer to the challenges Pakistan faced, and the immense natural resources the country possessed. Specifically, he referred to four allegations against Pakistan - encouraging terrorism across the Line of Control, the use of the tribal areas as bases for attacks inside Afghanistan, failure to check nuclear proliferation, and the rampant intolerance and extremism in the country.
The president did not specifically say how his government intends to tackle these issues. But he did appear confident, because he said the majority in Pakistan believed in moderation. As for the terrorism charge, all one can say is that the detente with India is indicative of a change in New Delhi's own perception of the issue, while with Kabul the area of misunderstanding seems to be narrowing. On the question of nuclear proliferation, it is a section in the western media that is foremost in holding Pakistan guilty without a trial.
Mercifully, western governments, especially the US, have shown confidence in Islamabad's ability to keep its nuclear assets secure. As for extremism in Pakistan, there is no turn-key solution to it. The effect of the Afghan war and the spread of the 'jihadi' culture will take time to subside. In the meantime, what the country needs is a massive effort to spread literacy. Bigotry and intolerance are essentially the hallmark of a semi-literate society.
Once again, Pakistan finds itself at a constitutional cross-roads. Will history repeat itself, and the system created by Gen Musharraf will collapse when he is no more on the scene? Or will those who have crafted the new constitutional edifice - both the generals and the politicians who have cooperated with them - work it to lay the foundations of a workable democracy? Pakistani politicians - as well as generals - have a tendency to go for maximal solutions. They do not believe in compromise. The generals themselves equate the army's interests with those of the nation - a point that emerges clearly from the president's own speech.
The "systems" given by Ayub and Zia collapsed because their opponents believed in total rejection of what the two generals had come up with. Those now in our parliament and those who are to follow must aim at waging a sustained and democratic struggle for the restoration of the Constitution in its original parliamentary form.
Let us note that those who helped pass the seventeenth amendment bill are precisely those who are the fiercest opponents of Gen Musharraf's war on terror and extremism. The working of this new scheme, thus, paradoxically depends on those whose policies contain this extraordinary contradiction: they help President Musharraf stay in power and, at the same time, they oppose the key elements of his policies.
Significantly, the MMA boycotted the president's speech. As for the ARD, they are already on the wrong side of both. It is this new triangle of love and hate that will be setting the course for the system now in place. There is still time to make a genuine effort to seek the cooperation of the PPP and the PML-N in the quest for a new beginning.
Leave Basant alone
According to press reports, the MMA has threatened to stage a sit-in in front of the Punjab Assembly building in Lahore if the provincial government does not rescind its decision to permit Basant celebrations. The group is part of several in Punjab that have been protesting against the annual spring and kite-flying festival which involves countless people, young and old alike, throughout the province and beyond.
The Punjab government has refused to ban the celebrations, which usually take place in February, although it has probably set a deadline for the festivities to be wound up rather than be permitted to drag on for weeks, as now usually happens.
Those opposing Basant fall into two categories. The first group consists of those who are bothered about the power failures and injuries that result from kite flying. The use of metallic strings in recent years is indeed dangerous and should be banned. The other category comprises those who base their objection to Basant on religious or cultural grounds. The latter do not have much of a case: Basant in Punjab is essentially an event celebrating the change from winter to spring and the outbreak of colour in the countryside. It has traditionally been celebrated as a secular festival.
Like so much else in our lives today, the festival's celebrations too have undergone a change in character. There is far more street rowdyism now than before, a development that has turned many people against the festival. Another thing that has happened is that Basant has been commercialized. It is used as a public relations gimmick by big businesses which throw lavish rooftop parties on the occasion, by the government, which likes the big bucks flowing in from tourist activity, and by show business personalities, who find this a glorious opportunity to show off.
But while Basant has to be saved from such exploitation and given back some of its spontaneity, it has also to be protected from those who wish to wipe out all traces of humour and joy from our lives. Our appeal to them is to please leave people alone as long as they don't break the law or threaten anyone. If you have to stage sit-ins, do it for worthier causes. Many more people are killed or injured daily in highway accidents than countless Basants put together. Please hold sit-ins against rapacious transporters and reckless drivers. Please help impound buses and wagons that take lives. Please let the people enjoy the small pleasures of a life that is often bleak and soul-destroying.