| 17 March 2004 | Wednesday | 25 Muharram 1425 |
The death of two little girls
Girl on a bicycle
Freedom is the birth-right of every individual. Till the advent of the 20th century, however, this right had almost universally been denied to human beings throughout history under one pretext or the other.
In the past hundred years, democracy has gradually expanded its domain to cover most of the civilized world. Francis Fukuyama, in his seminal thesis "End of History" rightly argues that the present victory of the ideas of freedom, democracy and free market over all other ideologies is the final destination of mankind.
The totalitarian and monarchial regimes still in existence in some parts of the Arab world are an anachronism. There is much ado about the "great initiative" of the United States which it is likely to announce in the next summit of the G-8 countries in June, regarding encouraging democracy in the Middle Eastern region as a whole.
Only a few weeks ago, President Bush was categorical in calling upon the US allies in the region by name to introduce democratic reforms. The present initiative is modelled on the Helsinki Pact of 1975, which the West used to press for greater freedom in the erstwhile Soviet Union and its East European allies.
The Arab foreign ministers also announced "homegrown plans" for democracy and reforms at their conclave in Cairo on March 1. They have discussed plans for an Arab parliament and an Arab court of justice.
The catch is that they want to have outward symbols that may be irrelevant to an Arab man on the street whose civil and political rights have so long been denied. When the region is abound with rubber stamp parliaments, farcical elections and kangaroo courts, what purpose can a regional parliament serve. It appears that the moment of reckoning has arrived.
The categorical rejection of the Lebanese foreign minister Jean Obeid of the introduction of democratic reforms to "please or appease the outsiders" reflects the views of most of the incumbent Arab rulers.
"Democratic systems cannot be imported readymade to the countries of the region...Democracy is an accumulation of practices which springs from the heritages of the peoples", he told reporters after holding talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
Equally harsh was the tone of Saudi foreign minister Saud al Faisal at Brussels where he criticized the western plans to, what he called, force democracy on the Arab world.
"If the Middle East is to change and if the West is to have a role, it is not to find ways and means to force reform on the world but to provide example to everyone" he said.
A joint statement at Riyadh, which was President Mubarak's next stopover after Lebanon, after his talks with the Saudi rulers also strongly rebuffed the initiative. The Arab League and most of the Arab governments have spoken in similar terms. In any case, the proposed plan would be at the top of the agenda at the Arab League moot scheduled for the last week of March at Tunis.
Admittedly, no system can be imported readymade from one region to another and enforced in its totality. Also true is the fact that every country has a different set of culture, history and values.
Equally cogent is the argument that the people for whom a system is being proposed have a right to be consulted. But going by the objective realities of the region at large, there is a reverse side of each of these well meaning notions as well.
One can no longer harp on the tunes that the West may offer. The American model of democracy and free market is there for over two centuries now. Many Arab regimes did not and would not accept it.
For one, the fundamental values of freedom, democracy and free market are undoubtedly culture-neutral, race-neutral, gender-neutral and region-neutral. The theories that particular nations or races are inferior ones and cannot afford democracy or self-rule has long been discarded.
Had it not been so, many of the Arab states would still have been European colonies. In a region where many regimes are unrepresentative in character even if the government is consulted, the interlocutors can never be sure whether they are dealing with the people or only with certain individuals at the helm.
And without reproducing the texts of the statements of the western leaders, in response to the Arab rulers' barrage of criticism, this is exactly how the former has responded.
Colin Powell, Richard Armitage and Jack Straw, all have argued that the Middle East has to reform, that there is certainly a "sense of urgency" for it, that the West does recognize that democracy must be compatible with Arab culture and traditions, but the bottom line still is that democracy must come to the Middle East and come it shall.
Unfortunately, in the totalitarian regimes certain individuals, groups or lobbies develop a vested interest in the perpetuation of the status quo. And if concurrence of precisely these groups is solicited before the introduction of any meaningful change, the whole exercise becomes meaningless.
But the people of the Arab states can be directly asked to determine their preferred form of government through referendums, provided a level playing field is allowed to all the actors for at least six months prior to this exercise. This can only be done under the auspices of the United Nations.
Otherwise, Saddam Hussein, whose humiliating capture was celebrated in the streets of Baghdad with almost universal jubilation had "won" a presidential referendum only the preceding year with a cent per cent vote cast in his favour.
The Iraqi episode has many other seminal lessons for regional politics. Foremost is that a totalitarian regime is a domestic failure in governance. In as brutal a dispensation as in the Ba'ath-ruled Iraq, where even a pen was taken as a threat to the state, there is so much illegal weapon accumulation that even the might of the American army is finding itself helpless.
An autocratic state with all its coercive power could not stop weaponization of a whole society. On top of it, the internal wounds of the polity were so deep that the moment the system went in a state of flux, a great lava of simmering discontent erupted. Who knows how much internally fragmented and lethally armed some of the other societies in the Middle East are?
Experimentation in abrupt changes of political system may eventually backfire. The circumstances of the time call for tact and patience. The United States and its European allies might have realized that the costs of inaction far surpass the costs of action. But the fervour must not lead to forcing democracy through.
A tentative, careful and step-wise approach is required in the interest of the stability of the region. But this must not be one-sided. The West, on its part, must not condone the violation of such fundamental values of freedom that are the natural right and collective heritage of mankind.
Selective favour of democratic values has impeded human progress. The silence of the free world over the denial of right to govern to the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) in Algeria led the country and the region into turmoil.
The victory of the Justice and Development party, with its Islamist roots, has brought to power the Prime Minister Recep Tayyop Erdogan in Turkey. The way he has pushed through the democratic reforms brings home the fact that one must have faith in democracy as being too strong a system that its own dynamics dictate human progress, whichever the party in power.
On their part, the Arab governments would have to seize the initiative, lest the momentum of events overtakes them. The proposed democratic reforms in some countries are "too little, too late", with no useful value. A time has come that the ruling establishments start a process of potent reforms in the right direction.
The first steps may include unconditional release of all political prisoners, renunciation of torture and police brutalities as a political weapon, complete abolition of censorship from all forms of mass communication media and the putting in place of a free and impartial judiciary, in this order. This may follow with multi-party democracies with elected local governments in the first phase and then fully sovereign parliaments at the centre in the second.
The kings rule some of the Arab states and they may continue doing so under the democratic dispensations as well. But one shall have to comprehend the writing on the wall that their very survival depends on limiting their role to that of purely constitutional monarchy.
As for the "hereditary presidencies" like what happened in Syria and Azerbaijan in the recent past, and the way Saddam groomed his sons for succession, and the indications that are now coming from the presidents of Libya and Egypt, they have no future whatsoever.
Three important considerations for the success of the greater Middle East initiative, or for any other initiative for democracy, and the rule of law in the region must not be lost sight of. For one, the democracy initiatives should not have timeframes of not less than five years in each case to avoid civil unrest and chaos.
Secondly, adequate precautions should be taken to ensure that the past is buried and the present leadership is not subjected to ruthless political vendetta during the transition phase.
Thirdly, the totalitarian rulers must not be trusted to initiate reforms themselves. The appeasement of Saddam Hussein and Qadhafi has cost the region dearly. And lastly, the democracy initiative must include the former Soviet central Asian republics.
E-mail: saadskhan@yahoo.co.uk.
The death of two little girls
About four weeks ago, two little girls - Hajra (8) and Sassi (5) - went missing in Murad Memon Goth on the outskirts of Karachi. They had gone to gather firewood for their homes. Two days later their mutilated bodies were recovered from the premises of a veterinary hospital in the possession of the Gadap police station.
This heinous crime, which sent a shiver down most people's spine, was not the first one of its kind in this megacity which has become so unsafe and insecure not just for our children but for all of us as well.
What is shocking is that the incident failed to overly shock the people of Karachi, so desensitized have they become to violence. The kidnapping and killing seemed such a routine affair that no paper reported it until the bodies were found two days later and the people of Memon Goth attacked the police station in anger. The attack on the thana, rather than the killings, made news.
There was not much of a public reaction. True, some voices of protest were raised by a few party leaders, including those in the government, such as the Muttahida that holds the portfolio of the Sindh home department. The statements that were issued were muted and more of a formality than a heart-felt expression of anguish. They made no impact in Islamabad's corridors of power.
No quick investigations by an independent body and prompt justice were ordered. The chief minister of Sindh sent a letter to the registrar of the Sindh High Court urging him to order a judicial enquiry. But nothing came of it and it was left to the police, who were believed to be involved in the crime, to probe into the incident.
After a week of reporting the reaction of the NGOs and opposition leaders who had, to their satisfaction, found a new stick to beat the government with, the press lost interest and turned to other issues of a sensational nature which keep propping up in abundance. Sure enough, the murder of a People's Party MPA a week later became the focus of attention of the political parties and provided plenty of fuel to the opposition in its attack against the government, which the murder of two little girls with no political clout could ever have done.
This incident reminded many columnists of the murder of another eight-year-old girl 26 years ago in Karachi. When writing about Hajra and Sassi, many of them recalled the case of Tarannum Aziz (8), for that was the name of the other girl who was kidnapped on February 5, 1978 and then raped and murdered. And how did the public react then? With shock and shame.
The day Tarannum's body was found, there was an outburst of public anger. The next day the city closed down on a call for a strike. The day after that General Ziaul Haq flew into the city in the quiet of the night for "an on-the-spot briefing on the law and order situation in Karachi, particularly the investigation into the kidnapping and murder of an eight-year-old child". Small wonder the police got activated and within a week five suspects were rounded up and a case lodged against them.
All this seems unbelievable. How could the public protest - quite peaceful by and large - have produced such a powerful impact? Wasn't the country under martial law in 1978? Wasn't political activity banned? Wasn't the press tightly shackled? Weren't the student unions banned? Besides there was no MQM to mobilize Karachi's population and enforce a strike by driving terror in the hearts of people.
There was no Women's Action Forum either to make people aware of the hateful trend of violence against women. There was no HRCP to demand the fundamental rights of life, liberty and security for the people, including children like Tarannum Aziz.
Then how would one explain this phenomenon? The fact is that our society is regressing as deep fragmentation sets in. Even the basic values of decency and respect for human life, which at one time held people of all beliefs and orientations together, are no more shared by all.
Today respect for human life and liberty depends on the social status and political standing of the person whose life and liberty are at stake. If he is a 'nobody' and has no social or political influence, he will find himself isolated with no one to stand up for him. He would depart unwept and unsung.
The so-called restoration of democracy in Pakistan has paradoxically only brought greater evils in its wake because this is not the kind of democracy the people had struggled for. The system as it has emerged has not empowered the voters.
Instead, it has polarized them sharply. As a result they find that the political institutions which exist do not allow their voice to be heard. The structures of power remain intact and the leaders who manage to get voted into office have their own priorities which do not necessarily coincide with the interests of their electorate. If this state of affairs has led to public despair and cynicism, can you really blame the people?
Seemingly, there is more freedom today. You have a lively press, independent television channels and the Internet which allow a free exchange of views and information. With the disengagement of the government from many sectors of governance and public life, civil society has created more space for itself. Decentralization has also allowed private institutions to play a bigger role in the affairs of the country.
Then why should this impression be created that the public's voice is not heard by those who wield power? How is it possible for the murderers of Hajra and Sassi to get away unaccounted for? The fact is that the decentralization and deregulation of state power has actually enhanced the authority of the government and made it even less accountable to the people.
The institutions which traditionally strengthen government control over society and enhance its authority - the armed forces and the police are two important ones - have become stronger.
Furthermore, their responsibilities in many spheres have been reduced while their financial resources and powers have been increased, thus giving them greater freedom of action. Since the police were apparently involved in the murder of the two little girls, the fact that they have not been adequately taken to task underscores their privilege and power.
This is the new system which is taking shape. The politicians who are a part of this system do not question it. Their struggle is aimed at gaining a share in the power arrangement. They already enjoy many privileges which they use to their personal advantage while these are denied to the common man.
But can this go on indefinitely? Very soon the deprived ones will feel resentful enough to react strongly. The exposure they get to other societies through the media and the information they gather creates awareness in them to help them realize the excesses committed against them.
The people can also see for themselves that the democracy we have doesn't protect them from these heinous crimes, nor provide them the means to articulate their grievances. As a result, protest will emerge as the only political tool. This is not something that augurs well for our society for it will encourage violence, chaos and anarchy.
Girl on a bicycle
In Islamabad I live about two furlongs from a girls' college, opposite which my bank and the post office are located. I frequently walk up to them in the morning. One day I was surprised to see a girl arriving at the college on a bicycle.
Actually, surprised is a small word for my reaction. I was left open-mouthed. Small girls wheel around in my street for pleasure, and foreign women going about their business on bicycles are not rare, but this was the first time in many many years that I saw a Pakistani girl riding a bike to school or college.
The explanation came a few days later when I had the opportunity to mention the matter before a niece who studies in that college. She told me the girl was indeed Pakistani (and Muslim), she had arrived recently from England where her parents had been for some years, and that she did not live far from the college and thought it was a waste to ask someone at home to drop her and fetch her, so she chose the bicycle as her mode of transport. She had brought the machine with her from England.
I belong to Lahore. Before August 1947 when Punjab was partitioned, the population of the city was predominantly Muslim but the number of Muslims among the students, and especially girl students, was far less than that of Hindu and Sikh young men and women.
At that time one could see literally hundreds of girls on bicycles going to high school or college every day, but with only a sprinkling of Muslim girls among them.
After that fateful August, the whole complexion of the population changed almost overnight. All the Muslims who lived in Punjab that fell to the share of India came over to Pakistan, and hardly any Hindu or Sikh was left in Pakistani Punjab. When things settled down after the riots and the killings, and educational institutions re-started functioning, no non-Muslim girl was left to go to school or college on bicycle.
Then another remarkable thing happened. The number of Muslim girls riding bicycles began to rise, and by 1950, when the presence of Hindus and Sikhs was becoming a memory, you could again see a large number of girls going about on the two-wheeler. Another noteworthy development at that time was the wholesale manner in which Muslim women and young girls came out of purdah. It was as if, with non-Muslim men no longer there, the need for seclusion had also ended!
Leaders among Muslim women had played a prominent role in the Pakistan movement. They had led processions of ordinary women imbued with the passion for Pakistan and willing to make sacrifices for it.
They had gone to jail for the cause, and as my wife told me when we were married in 1960, young Muslim girls were full of the Pakistan spirit, and, in many cases, bolder than young men in facing the British Indian police. Ideals were taken seriously then, and there was a new-born realization that if Muslims were to achieve anything worthwhile it would have to be with the combined efforts of both men and women.
After independence the lakhs of Muslim women who came here in the migration from East Punjab went through a harrowing time. The baptism of fire had affected the young among them who were students.
They were much less fussy and pampered than they are today, and their parents were decidedly more matter-of-fact about worrying over their comfort. Even among boys it was a rare student who came to college in a car, and I still remember the excellent impression created by the two sons of Governor Abdur Rab Nishtar who rode to Government College on bicycles in the early fifties.
Nowadays of course social habits have changed beyond recognition. Young boys and girls are as status conscious as their parents. To them the bicycle is a symbol of poverty and meant for a class much lower in the social order than theirs.
There is a premium on ostentation and no credit is given by anyone to simplicity or austerity - not even by social reformers who only pay lip-service to these attributes and do not like to practise them. A boy would rather be seen walking to school than riding a bicycle. In this atmosphere who would expect girls to be cycling to college?
Secondly, there is infinitely more traffic on the roads than there was, say, thirty years ago. No means are absolutely safe and without possibility of accident, but the bicycle is thought to be exceptionally hazardous, especially for girls. (By the way, my plan to buy one for riding to nearby destinations was shot down by my two daughters for this very reason.) And I think if we have to beat the energy devil and encourage the use of bicycles, the government will have to provide special lanes for cyclists all over the city, as they do in Holland, where, by tradition, even the Queen is frequently seen on a bicycle on public roads.
There is a third aspect too. People who would like their daughters to use the bicycle for going to college, are afraid of hoodlums and high-spirited but spoiled boy students "out for fun."
I remember that incidents of dupattas being snatched from girl students on bicycles in Lahore was one reason for the decline of this mode of transport for females in that city. Also where are all the bicycles to come from? I believe manufacturers have stopped making what used to be called the lady cycle.
But whatever the reasons for the bicycle going out of circulation for students, they are all social in nature. None of them is an insurmountable hurdle to their greater use by students in general and girls in particular. None of them is such that a little discipline will not resolve.
If it can make up its mind, society can remove the hurdles. But then what is society and our social system doing to solve so many other, more vital, problems facing the nation as a whole or confronting groups of citizens?
And then, I suppose, bicycles do not have a high priority and must wait for better times to receive the attention of sociologists and the government and those like me who advocate their use for girls out of a sense of unrealistic appreciation of conditions. (This is what most of my readers will say about me. Doesn't this fellow know what life is like nowadays?) So, I'm afraid I'll have to walk to the girls' college every time I want to see a girl on a bicycle!