| 19 May 2004 | Wednesday | 28 Rabi-ul-Awwal 1425 |
Right order of priorities
Serving the nation
Confounding the pundits not only in capitals around the world but within India itself, the Indian electorate voted out the BJP led coalition, giving the Congress-led coalition a relatively decisive victory.
It was a truly astonishing result. Every analysis, superficial or profound, seemed to support the BJP leadership's thesis that the party had been wise in calling early elections to cash in on both the record economic growth India had registered and the success in improving ties with Pakistan.
When the campaigning began, one question was how far the blossoming rapprochement with Pakistan would complement the slogan of "India Shining" and to what extent would the BJP hog the credit.
The public response to the initiative was overwhelming. The success of the Indian cricket team's tour of Pakistan and the general bonhomie that prevailed vindicated Vajpayee's decision to go ahead with the tour despite apprehensions about security. It also added lustre to the BJP's election campaign. Sonia Gandhi and other Congress leaders endorsed the policy of peace with Pakistan, as did the leaders of the other parties that formed part of the "secular" coalition that the Congress was leading.
It seemed, at least at that time, that Mrs. Gandhi's efforts to prove that Vajpayee was, in fact, following the policies initiated by her mother-in-law and husband had evoked little response.
When the campaign began it seemed that Vajpayee's verbal denunciation of the violence against the Muslims in Gujarat, his muted support of the Hindu extremist parties on the Babri Masjid issue, and above all, his "peace initiative" Pakistan would lessen if not altogether eliminate the traditional anti-BJP stance of the Muslim minority, and would enable the BJP to cut into the vote bank of the Congress and its allies.
The BJP was able to announce proudly the formation of a Muslim "Vajpayee Himayat" party and to claim that it had made substantial progress in getting offers of support from influential Muslim leaders. However, the election results showed that these claims proved no more true than the "India Shining" slogan in garnering votes for the BJP.
With the benefit of hindsight, it is apparent that the "India Shining" slogan fell not only on deaf but also extremely resentful ears. The remarkable progress India has made in enlarging its exports, accumulating foreign exchange reserves and in carving an admirable niche for itself in information technology had given rise to a new crop of millionaires and had enlarged the middle class in the cities.
However, it brought little tangible benefit to the villages where the overwhelming majority of the Indians live. To the villagers for whom the economic development process had brought small dividends, the only apparent result was a further expansion in the yawning gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots", a feeling exacerbated by the culture of conspicuous consumption so readily embraced by the newly rich in the cities and so readily portrayed on the vastly expanded visual media.
Whether the elections also reflected the electorate's rejection of communalism associated with the BJP and its principal supporters - the extremist Hindu parties - is, at least to my mind, a moot point.
Certainly for many of the minorities - primarily the Muslims but also the Christians - this may have been the decisive factor but for the vast majority of the voters the sense of economic deprivation was clearly the determinant.
What is also clear is that while rapprochement with Pakistan may not have yielded the expected dividends for the BJP, it was not a contentious issue. All the main parties and their spokespersons agreed that the policy was a good one.
If there was an issue it related to whether the credit for this policy belonged entirely to Mr Vajpayee or whether he should be credited with no more than building upon policies initiated by the Congress.
Two elements stand out in the policy pronouncements of the Congress party leaders after their unexpected victory. First, the effort to reassure India's capitalist class that the economic reforms to which much of India's economic progress is attributed would continue on course.
There are fears that since the Congress-led coalition would be dependent on the support of the Left Front, which garnered a surprising 62 seats in the elections, the privatization of profitable public sector enterprises would be placed on hold, and since the Congress has consistently maintained that its pursuit of economic reforms would have a "humane face", there would be greater emphasis on protecting the rights of labour as against those of the entrepreneur/capitalist.
The plunge of the Mumbai Stock Exchange that lost 16 per cent its trading value on Friday and then on Monday has been attributed to these misgivings. The fact, however, is that the market was overpriced and was due for a heavy correction irrespective of the election results.
Perhaps, this nosedive could also be attributed to the withdrawal of foreign speculative investment since such investment is skittish whenever there is any sign of political uncertainty or even a hint of unfavourable economic policies.
While there is no doubt that the BJP was perceived as pro-business, there is also little doubt that the Congress has its share of "fat-cat" supporters and will not be pursuing policies that will jeopardize economic growth or fetter the entrepreneur.
The second and more relevant from Pakistan's perspective were the pronouncements on Indo-Pakistan relations. Mrs. Gandhi has made it clear that she "owns" this policy and intends to carry it forward.
The change, as signalled by other statements appears to be that in carrying this policy forward the focus will be not on recent Indo-Pakistan agreements or understandings but on the accords and decisions that were reached when the Congress was in power.
In other words, there will be fewer references to the 1999 Lahore Declaration, the aborted Agra Summit and the recent Islamabad Declaration, and many more to the Simla Agreement, the enhanced people to people contacts agreed upon at that time, the discussions held when Rajiv Gandhi visited Pakistan for the Saarc summit and to the agreement on the "non attack on nuclear facilities" reached at that time.
From Pakistan's perspective this change dictated by a perceived political need should be of little consequence if it does not involve a difference in substance.
In fact President Musharraf and his colleagues would welcome the de-emphasis on the Lahore Declaration and the mixed feelings it evokes. As far as substance is concerned, there is little indication of any change.
According to the roadmap of negotiations agreed upon by the two sides, admittedly in the anticipation of a BJP victory, the next scheduled meeting is between officials to discuss confidence-building measures (CBMs) in the nuclear field on May 25 and May 26.
If there is a change in schedule, it would presumably not be because the policy is being reconsidered but on account of the understandable delays in government formation. But since this meeting is at the level of officials, the problems of government formation need not be a hindrance. On the grounds of politics, the Congress-led government should, in fact, be anxious to proceed with this meeting and to publicize CBMs in the nuclear field as a logical continuation of the agreement on non-attack on nuclear facilities concluded between Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto.
It is of course true that much of the discussion will flow from the topics that had been incorporated in the Lahore Declaration and on which, because of the tension of the past few years, there had been no follow-up.
One such subject would be the notification of missile tests. With a few notable exceptions, India and Pakistan have notified each other of missile tests but on the basis of an informal understanding.
One can expect that the officials of the two sides will examine and agree upon the technical details of a formal agreement on advance notification of missile tests.
While it would be a feather in the cap of both governments, it would be of particular value to the new government in India if it could be announced that the text of the formal accord on this subject had been agreed upon by the officials of the two sides and would be signed at the first ministerial or summit meeting between the two sides.
Another subject that is likely to figure on the agenda is the question of the deployment of missiles. There appears to be some measure of agreement between security analysts on both sides that the deployment of nuclear-capable short-range missiles along the border is unnecessarily provocative, and more importantly, could, in the event of an accident, lead to an unintended and unwanted conflict.
An agreement that such missiles should, in peacetime, be deployed further inland would be a logical extension of the agreement on non-attack on nuclear facilities.
There will obviously be questions about verifying the implementation of such an agreement but an agreement in principle could be reached by the officials while a formal agreement could wait until verification procedures are devised an agreement is reached on the capability of the current intelligence resources of the two countries to deal with the task.
The Lahore Declaration had also talked of the creation of a mechanism for the timely provision of accurate and credible information on incidents that could otherwise be misinterpreted by the other side and trigger a conflict. This is a proposal that too could be seen as a logical continuation of the agreement to protect nuclear installations from attack.
It is, of course, important that the forward momentum in Indo-Pakistan relations be maintained by adhering to the schedule of meetings already agreed upon. It seems that the new Indian government will have no difficulty with this.
What is going to be even more important, however, is the vision of Mrs Gandhi and her allies on the substance of the most important issue - Kashmir.
Islamabad believed that Mr Vajpayee, during his tenure as prime minister, was prepared to move beyond stated positions even while doing so at a pace slower than Pakistan felt was necessary.
There is the hope that despite her difficulties - including the reservations about her eligibility for the office of prime minister - Mrs. Gandhi will give this issue the priority it merits as the composite dialogue moves forward. This, after all, is the substance of the Simla agreement to which the Congress party rightly attaches great importance.
The writer is a former foreign secretary.
Right order of priorities
Practically all Pakistan's problems, whether they pertain to conflicts, corruption, unemployment, insecurity or an inefficient government machinery, ultimately boil down to poverty.
There is a very small pie and a multiplying number of hungry people. The only solution is to expand the size of the economy and generate enough wealth for equitable distribution to meet at least basic individual needs.
We cannot even begin to hope for expanding the economic base without preparing the ground and creating the right conditions for it. In order to eliminate poverty and make the economy grow, we must arrive at and achieve some basic goals.
Like the oppressive feudal attitude prevailing in many areas of Pakistani society, intellectual leadership, too, has been regressive. There is very little participation in a scholarly dialogue focusing on the needs and desires of the common man.
The major reason for this deficiency is obvious. Democratic and people-based practices have not been allowed to take root and individual interest has reigned.
After more than half a century, there is still confusion about our national priorities and the form of government that should be in place. Had a consensus been reached earlier, these issues would not have remained in question today.
public wishes can be incorporated within the framework of a comprehensive national policy on different subjects. Meaningful parliamentary discourse has been too rare for any lasting impact on the political and social course the country should follow. Every administration, governed by individual interest, has had its own definition of "national interest".
Barring a few exceptions, what Pakistan has lacked in the last 57 years is a leadership capable of mobilizing an intellectual direction that could channel the county's energies into nationally integrated progress. On the basis of an informal survey carried out by the writer, the following conclusion was reached: if 100 concerned Pakistani citizens from a cross section of society were asked to prepare a list of basic national priorities, this is what they would jot down:
- A positive self-image of ourselves as Pakistanis.
- An accessible and affordable system of justice in the country, which is also a key factor in economic progress.
- A powerful senate where all provinces are equally represented. The US model offers a good example.
- Measures to bring down the population growth to 0.5 per cent or less within five years, and to attain 100 per cent literacy rate within the same time span.
- Encouragement to individuals to create opportunities for self-employment.
- Cultivating excellent relations with neighbouring countries so that defence expenditure can be frozen at the current level.
- Eliminating foreign debts and economic uncertainties and creating the right conditions for citizens to voluntarily invest 90 per cent of all their wealth in the country.
- Linking provincial capitals with proper highways, in fact, beefing up all means of communication.
- Greater recognition of Pakistani scientists, academics, scholars, artists, intellectuals, and their individual and collective achievements.
- Barring, for a specified length of time, high-ranking government officials from being on the payroll of an outside organization, and refraining from appointing those with a dual nationality or rights of residence, or who have invested more than 20 per cent of their wealth outside the country to influential government posts. Government employees add considerably to national expenditure. They should be made to pay for their cars, fuel, electricity etc.
The biggest obstacle to good governance has been the absence of political parties run on democratic principles and with proper agendas. Political parties are essential for the common man's access to political power.
Out of the country's innumerable political parties, only the All India Muslim League, which created Pakistan, and later the Pakistan People's Party, involved the masses in the attainment of tangible goals: a separate homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent, and "roti, kapra aur makan" much after the creation of Pakistan.
Otherwise, our countless political parties have vaguely defined agendas and are committed more to their own interests than to those of the people. Those among them include certain religious parties that say they are propagating an Islamic system.
However, this has yet to prove a substitute for a parliamentary, democratic system anywhere in the world. Small wonder, then, that their vote bank has been hardly more than five per cent in the elections. In the last elections it was higher owing to the political fallout of America's role in world affairs after 9/11.
It is strange to see political parties demanding national elections for a change of government every couple of years when they themselves have never conducted fair elections within their own ranks for decades.
The notoriety that Pakistan has earned for the shifting loyalties of its politicians is indicative of weak organizations that are unable to present themselves as a composite whole in the face of a crisis or even a difference of opinion within their ranks.
Even well-organized political parties have not been able to flourish in Pakistan, perhaps because of the autocratic culture that runs through the veins of these entities.
During a television interview prior to 2002 polls, MQM chief Altaf Hussain touched on a valid point when he observed that Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were living in self-exile and were not returning to answer the charges against them in court.
For, in a country, where some fear that even the elite may not be able to get a fair trial, what chances would an ordinary person have?
An efficient justice system is not only the heart of a civilized society and democracy, it is also a prerequisite for genuine economic development and investment.
Lack of recourse to justice for common citizens is the root cause of most ills. Special courts, military courts, accountability bureaus and terrorist courts etc are not the solution. In fact, the need and proliferation of such ad hoc judicial substitutes serve to further emphasize the point that all is not well with the mainstream judicial process in the country.
Where justice is concerned, a stable government stands on three legs of equal strength i.e. the legislature, a mechanism to implement the rules and one to interpret the law as applied to a particular situation.
It is unfortunate that it suits both civilian and military governments to take on the role of interpreting the law and the power to implement them, negatively influencing the judicial structure in the country.
This will ultimately result in weaker administrations. Whereas non-elected governments suspend assemblies, elected ones tend to render their own members impotent with power being concentrated in the hands of a few.
It is in everybody's long-term interest to work for a strong justice system in the country, accessible to and respected by all.
When we look around and see countries that are truly democratic in letter and spirit, it becomes obvious that the rule of law has to come first. Only an independent accessible judiciary can guarantee an environment where the rule of law can flourish.
However, a strong judiciary has never been high on any party's agenda. They all mention "justice" as an abstract concept but do not dilate on a judicial system that could deliver the goods to the ordinary citizens.
To sum up, the salvation and progress of Pakistan lie in reaching a consensus on intellectually formed national goals by genuine political parties, under the umbrella of an independent judiciary.
Serving the nation
By the very nature of his/her duties, a prime minister of Pakistan is serving the nation. So is the leader of the opposition because of the important place that the position occupies in the democratic dispensation.
However, our socio- political system is such that whereas a prime minister is pompously conscious of serving the nation (and in fact believes that he/she is doing the nation a favour) the leader of the opposition derives no satisfaction from the post.
Some years ago I praised Imran Khan in this column for saying that it was not necessary for a public-spirited person to be in politics in order to serve the people.
He was at that time building the Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital and was doing for the people of this country what few are blessed by the Almighty to do. Then he was bitten by the politics bug and he began to believe that the only effective way to be of service to the masses was to become their prime minister.
It's really too much the way every Tom, Dick and Harry is obsessed by thoughts of serving the nation. A chap who is selling bootlaces for want of a better occupation, thinks he is not doing it for a living but is being useful to the country.
Every student who stands first in any examination is determined to serve the country by becoming a deputy commissioner (by the way, where is that breed now?) and, failing that, a doctor or an engineer.
It's never a social worker or a human rights activist. If a young man ends up by becoming a floor sweeper in Dubai he still claims he is serving his country by being there. The trouble with this nation is that there too many self-styled servants of the people and too few genuine nation-builders.
Every new captain of a national sports team tells the press how happy he is to be able to serve the country, as if his team- mates are not doing the same. I fail to see where service to the country comes in.
Does the England cricket team or the MCC go into every match as if it is on the battlefield of Waterloo? One plays hockey or cricket because one loves the game, and one should be happy to rise to the top and become skipper for the sheer glory of it. Every player should have that desire. Why drag the poor country into one's sporting ambitions?
Middle class patients scrimp and save to provide a good professional education to their sons. The objective is almost always a medical or engineering degree. (MBA or masters in computer science is still out of their reach because of the high cost of self-financing). Nobody says so, but everybody knows in their heart of hearts that in these two professions the salary is of the least importance. It is the extra income, legitimate or illegitimate, for which the parents make all these sacrifices.
These fathers and mothers look forward to the day when they will at last have a car and other luxury goods, heralding a sea change in their life style. I should like to see their faces if they were told that, in keeping with their sons' avowed ambition to serve the nation, the boys had been posted to remote villages where their salary will be their only income.
Just before the October 2002 general election the air was thick with statements about serving the people. These came from candidates for seats in the National Assembly and the provincial assemblies. Suppose you and I had told these gentlemen that we could provide them with excellent opportunities to be of positive use to the masses if they gave up all thought of becoming MNA or MPA, would they have agreed? They would have bashed our heads in and shoved the proposal in our cranial cavity.
The general tenor of the politicians is: "If you elect me to office I shall serve the country (or community) like a slave." Khidmat is the key word in all their utterances. "Let me be your khadim," or "Just give me a chance to do khidmat for you." In fact the voter begins to feel that he is not in an election but interviewing candidates for the posts of domestic servants.
Why is it necessary for a public man, a man of the people, to hold some sort of office before he can serve them? What stops him from doing good or altruistically slaving for the community in a field of much-needed welfare when he is not a councillor or an MPA or MNA? Does service of the common man require a permit or licence that one can acquire only by first getting into office by hook or by crook?
In fact the demand constitutes a rather expensive proposition. First you get your public man elected to a lucrative office and only then expect him to serve you, and that too after he has served himself first. You have no right to utilize his talent for doing good when he is not holding an office of profit. And what profits! But he is so anxious to serve, so keen to be of some use to his fellow men, that he is ready to spend lakhs to enable you to elect him so that he can realise his cherished ambition of assisting mankind. What pure unadulterated altruism!
And if you fail to muster the necessary number of votes for him, if he loses the seat along with all that he has spent on it, then God help him. He is inconsolable. His frustration is so intense, his despondency so great that howsoever you may try to remind him of public service he will not react or be comforted. Words of commiseration and sympathy (and reminders of service to the people) will be Greek to him. Catching the first plane out of Pakistan he will endeavour to drown his sorrow in the streets of London. From erstwhile servant of the people he will come down to pub-crawling.
If you look around at the scene in Pakistan, how many politicians do you see engaged in work that could be described as beneficial to the community? Of course I am speaking of the general run of those aspiring to office, not the occasional good smaritans who run social welfare bodies or schools for the poor.
When out of office they are simply out of sorts. There they are, standing outside the arena of government activity, looking longingly at those within and waiting for their turn to come so that they too can start serving the nation.
Do you think something can be done to instil in our politicians the true concept of public service? This is not easy in a country where the real public servant, the government official, thinks that members of the public are his slaves and he is their ruler and mai baap.
I am inclined to believe that it is this role at which the politician looks with envy. Since he can't get into government service, he chooses the next best alternative - a seat from which he can exercise authority and enjoy clout.
To tell you the truth, I should be satisfied if the politician were to candidly admit that he plays politics for the excitement in the game and for his own material advancement. But that would mean asking him to speak the truth, something he has not learnt to do. So let him enjoy himself as he please.