EVEN a cursory glance at the conditions prevailing in the country presents a bleak picture to any objective observer. After about 60 years of independence, we are still groping for a political system based on national consensus. Instead of harmony among various units of the federation, there are growing sentiments of provincial disharmony. The law and order situation in the country is dismal to say the least. Justice remains beyond the reach of the common man who has to suffer daily at the hands of the powerful in our society.

Despite the rosy picture that the spokesmen of the government paint of the economic situation in the country, the fact of the matter is that as a result of the present government policies, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer because of soaring prices, a high level of unemployment and growing inequalities of wealth and income.

In short, we have in place a highly oppressive and exploitative system which is devoid of social and economic justice. This system represents the rule of the privileged, by the privileged and for the privileged. If history is any guide, such a system is inherently unstable because it can only spawn disorder and anarchy. Little wonder that on the latest Failed State Index, we have moved up from the 34th position in 2005 to ninth position in 2006.

How have we reached this gloomy state of affairs? How is it that a nation which came into existence through a democratic process has failed to practise democracy? Why is it that the followers of the noble religion of Islam, which places so much emphasis on human brotherhood, egalitarianism, and social and economic justice, have managed instead to establish a highly inequitable system?

These questions have been and are the subject of intense debate and discussion all over the country. Our destiny will depend upon our ability to find the right answers to these questions and act according to the lessons that they offer. Admittedly these are not easy questions to answer especially in the limited space of this article. Nevertheless it is worth a try.

Perhaps the most fundamental national flaw which has led us to the current sorry state of affairs is the lack of respect for law in our individual and collective conduct. It is ironical that a country whose founder was known for his commitment to and scrupulous regard for law has suffered the most from the violations of law and the Constitution.

The progress of human civilisation has been closely related with the development of law. In fact, it is the existence of laws which distinguishes a civilised society from an uncivilised one. A society without laws would be in a state of anarchy, disorder and constant strife. It would be like life in a jungle where might would prevail over right. There is an old saying that tyranny begins where laws end.

The developed nations of the world take pride in calling themselves nations of laws to stress the primacy of laws and rules in regulating the affairs of society and the behaviour of individuals to the extent that it affects other members of society. Everybody, whether powerful or weak, is equal before the law.

Pakistan’s history, on the other hand, is replete with examples of blatant violations of laws and the Constitution going unpunished because the individuals or the institutions responsible for such violations have been too powerful for the state’s law enforcement machinery and the violators of the law considered themselves to be above the law. The current lawlessness in the country is in large measure the legacy of this tendency on the part of the powerful to consider law as a handmaiden for serving their selfish motives and vested interests rather than something to be respected and obeyed.

Beyond the sanctity of the law but equally important is the question of the fairness of law. In a just and fair society, laws and rules are made for the common good of the people as determined by their representatives. In oppressive systems of government the laws and rules often serve the vested interests of the ruling elite rather than the interests of the public at large. A classic example was the rule introduced during the regime of Gen. Ziaul Haq allowing certain privileged individuals to import any car on a duty free basis. Such laws and rules which virtually legalise corruption abound in Pakistan’s history. In a representative and just society, one would not even think of such blatantly unjust laws and rules which rob the nation to fill the pockets of a few members of the privileged class.

An essential characteristic of the system of justice in a democratic society is the separation of the functions of the police, the prosecutor and the judge to ensure that the accused gets a fair trial and justice in accordance with the law. In a dictatorship or authoritarian form of government which has been Pakistan’s lot during most of its history, this division of functions gets blurred leading ultimately to the miscarriage of justice. It is not surprising to see in our own history that a dictator’s first preoccupation after the assumption of power is to subdue the judiciary and make it subservient to his dictates. There is little hope of justice in a society where the dictator and his cronies become the law, the prosecutor and the judge. And there is little hope for the future of a country where justice is beyond the reach of the common man.

Over-concentration of power in an individual or a group of individuals has been another bane of Pakistani politics. Almost every ruler in Pakistan, whether civilian or military, has fallen prey to this temptation. There is a well-known adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Accordingly, the chances of unjust laws and corruption increase in direct proportion to the concentration of powers in an individual.

From this point of view, dictatorship in which power is concentrated in the hands of a single individual, whether the dictator is supposedly benign or otherwise, in the long run is perhaps the worst and the most corrupt form of government. This is again proved by Pakistan’s history in which military dictators either sowed the seeds of national disasters or directly led the nation into them. As for corruption, the Transparency International rated Pakistan in 2005 with Congo, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, Paraguay and Tajikstan making it the fifth most corrupt country in the world. By way of comparison, Pakistan was ranked as the sixth most corrupt country in 2004 as against the eleventh position it occupied in 2003. So the level of corruption in the country, which was bad enough in 2003, has been going up.

Another flaw from which we have suffered as a nation is our inability to build up and strengthen the different institutions of state as part of a system of checks and balances. While this has been our general failing throughout our history, it has been especially prominent during military rule. It is the inherent compulsion of a dictator to subdue all institutions of state to his will. Therefore, the debilitation and destruction of state institutions is the inevitable consequence of dictatorship. The process of destruction of state institutions gathers speed if they are headed by the dictator’s cronies without any regard to merit.

Political problems require political solutions through talks and negotiations. This is sometimes a time-consuming process requiring a great deal of patience and tolerance, commodities which generally have been in short supply with our rulers. Therefore, our rulers, especially military dictators, developed a dangerous tendency to rely primarily if not exclusively on the use of force to resolve political issues. General Yahya Khan, of course, was the worst example of this tendency leading to the dismemberment of the country.

In our times, Waziristan and Balochistan are prime examples where more use of political means and less reliance on the use of force may produce satisfactory results for the government as well as for the country. Looked at closely, the situation in these areas relate in many ways to the overall political dispensation in the country in which the mainstream moderate parties have been sidelined thus allowing extremist and fissiparous tendencies to gather strength.

Finally, frequent military takeovers, on one pretext or the other, have played havoc with the country, destabilising its polity, stunting its political evolution and preventing democracy from taking root. It has been said that war is too serious a business to be left to generals. The generals are even more ill suited to deal with issues of politics, peace and prosperity as our own national experience has conclusively shown. The immaturity of our politicians and the shenanigans of our bureaucrats have played their own despicable role in these extra-constitutional or unconstitutional changes of government. The nation has paid a heavy price for these military takeovers for which all the three players mentioned above must bear full responsibility.

This brief analysis leads one to the inevitable conclusion that only a full-fledged democratic system embodying the principles of the supremacy of the representative institutions and the subordination of the military to civilian rule, wedded to the rule of law and the primacy of merit, dedicated to economic and social welfare, and committed to the building up of institutions rather than individuals, can provide solutions to the serious political and economic problems that the country faces. The army must go back to the barracks and focus on their professional duties in accordance with the Constitution. At the same time, politicians must abide by the recognised norms of democratic conduct whether in power or in opposition.

The country is at an important crossroads. The political and economic choices that we make now as a nation will determine whether we become a united, enlightened and prosperous country enjoying an honourable position in the comity of nations, or whether we will slide towards decay and oblivion.

It is in the backdrop of the foregoing that one must welcome wholeheartedly the signing of the Charter of Democracy by former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in London recently. Hopefully, the signing of this charter will not only help in ushering in an era of undiluted democracy in the country but also prevent the political parties from repeating past mistakes which paved the way for military take-overs.

The need of the hour is reconciliation among all the important players on the national political scene in order to make a fresh start along sound democratic lines. It must be acknowledged by them that at one stage or the other all of them have made serious mistakes from which the nation has grievously suffered. Accusations and counter-accusations will not serve any purpose. The nation expects better from them. They must rise above their vested interests and into on a common platform in the interest of democracy, political stability, economic progress and social justice in the country at a national reconciliation conference to be attended by all political parties and leaders whether inside or outside the country.

The writer is a former ambassador. E-mail: javid_husain@yahoo.com

I HAVE tried my best to find out what made the human resource development minister, Arjun Singh, issue a circular to the cabinet secretariat to provide reservation for the ‘Other Backward Classes’ (OBC) in central institutions, including the Indian Institute of Technology, the Indian Institute of Management and advanced medical colleges.

Earlier in the year, the 93rd constitutional amendment had provided reservations without drawing much attention.

When the circular was issued, there was no pressing demand for implementation which brought medical and business students out into the streets. Then why did Arjun Singh issue the circular? My reading is that he had an eye on the OBC vote, roughly 52 per cent, to influence state elections in Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Pondicherry.

According to reports, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was not in the picture. It is difficult to believe this because it makes matters worse. Did he only consult Congress president Sonia Gandhi? The science and technology minister, Kapil Sibal, would not have attacked the reservation issue if Sonia Gandhi had even been remotely connected with the circular. If nothing else, it speaks volumes about the disarray in government, and not the Congress as Arjun Singh has alleged. The right hand does not know what the left does. There are examples where ministers have been speaking at each other, not to each other.

That a government saddled with numerous problems of security should choose to kick sleeping dogs is the worst example of governance. After the passage of the constitutional amendment, there should have been no hurry to follow it up with a circular. Some 1,100 seats for the Dalits (Harijans) and tribals remain vacant every year in Delhi University alone. The question before the government should have been what steps to take to fill the vacancies, instead of creating more vacancies.

Those for whom reservations are provided still lack the minimum standard, however watered down. They are also economically deficient to enter the portals of universities. Could some attention be paid to these aspects?

Thankfully, Arjun Singh has deferred the circular’s implementation to some time after the state elections. The cabinet was not consulted before the circular was issued. Even the Commission for Scheduled Castes (Dalits) and Scheduled Tribes has complained that it knew nothing about the circular, although it is obligatory for the government to seek its advice under the constitution.

It is true that the centuries-old stratification of Hindu society has resulted in the worst type of discrimination and neglect against the Dalits, tribals and OBCs. But it is equally true that reservations initially provided for 10 years for Dalits and tribals are continuing and there is no prospect of their lessening, much less stopping. It looks as if the reservation issue has assumed the shape of vested interests. It provides the grist to the propaganda mills of political parties. Therefore, they will never allow reservations to go.

Students from the general category are understandably irritated. Earlier, their qualifying marks for admission to higher education were 85 per cent; now the minimum could be 90 per cent. The girls are more upset than the boys. The latter had led the agitation which followed reservation for OBCs in 1990 under Prime Minister V.P. Singh. The girls constitute the bulk of protesters because they have taken to progressions in a big way for economic independence in the last 15 years. You cannot justify their having to pay for the sins of their forefathers who treated the low castes badly.

One thing that has come to the fore after 55 years of reservation is that the benefits have not gone to the lowest among the Dalits or the OBCs. Despite the supreme court’s clear instructions, the creamy layer among them has cornered most reservations. However, a small portion that has trickled below has benefited the lowest.

A deputy commissioner from among them has the Brahmins from the highest caste queuing up before him for favour. Some members belonging to the high castes have married their daughters to Dalits or OBCs from the IAS. This has demolished social barriers to some extent. What the government has to reflect upon is whether reservation in higher education institutions would tell upon the ultimate product. Sibal is right when he says that “excellence is not against reservation.”

New Delhi must keep in mind another point: those outside the reservations are like the smouldering fire which flared up in 1990 and might do so again at any time. It took some years to douse the fire then. How much time would it take now if the circular is implemented is difficult to guess. The government would do well to keep the circular in abeyance until the whole question has been debated threadbare. The effort should be to reach a consensus, possibly by offering 12.5 per cent of reservation to the lowest OBCs.

While distributing reservations, there is a case for allotting quotas to those communities who have not had representation in the state. This is what Dr B.R. Ambedkar assured the nation in the constituent assembly and this is still awaiting implementation 56 years later. This may mean the scaling down of concessions for the upper strata of Dalits and OBCs. But then, they are the vocal lot and attract media attention.

A better way to deal with the problem would be to transfer the responsibility of reservation to the states. The south has managed it so well, even with reservation of more than 50 per cent. With New Delhi, the reservation issue becomes an all-India problem because the vote bank comes into the picture. The states, when the responsibility falls on them, do not have to enact a law which arouses attention and protest. It can be done through an executive order.

The supreme court has upheld the legality of such an order: “The government could direct the reservation by executive orders. The administrative orders cannot be issued in contravention of the statutory rules but could be issued to supplement the statutory rules.” The supreme court said this in its judgment in the case of comptroller and auditor-general vs Mohanlal Mehrotra.

It is time we started thinking of doing away altogether with reservations on the basis of caste. Jawaharlal Nehru had once deleted the caste column from admission forms. The process can start by lessening reservation by two per cent every year. In 50 years, we would have admissions and jobs on the basis of merit. What is important is to instil in the minds of people that India aims at a casteless society, the ethos of the independence movement.

The writer is a leading columnist based at New Delhi.