PML-Q president Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain said in an interview with Dawn published on Tuesday that the MMA would not be allowed “to take out a procession from Lahore to Gujrat on November 30 in an attempt to put pressure on him to resign from the assembly”.

Explaining this, Chaudhry Shujaat said the Punjab government had placed a ban on processions, recalling that some time back the PML-Q had been denied permission to hold a rally to celebrate the passage of the Protection of Women Bill. “If the ruling party is not allowed to hold rallies, how could permission be given to an opposition party?” he said.

Now what kind of politics and political talk is this? It fully typifies the juvenile level at which our politics and our political leaders, even those who can now claim to be “veteran politicians”, dwell. It is stretching our credibility to the limit to make us believe that if the PML-Q wants to hold a rally or take out a procession, it will be denied permission to do so by the Punjab government. This is all utter nonsense, particularly when the country’s president, Gen Pervez Musharraf, can in violation of all morality and constitutional propriety, call meetings of the ruling party and campaign on its behalf. It is beyond understanding why we play games like this and why in a democracy any procession or public meeting should in any case be banned.

Section 144 appears to be used solely, as in British days, to harass the opposition. It is also interesting to note that not so long ago the same MMA alliance was permitted to hold marches and demonstrations when other opposition parties were disallowed to do so.

That’s one low level at which we operate. The same Shujaat interview referred to above provides another glimpse of our twisted political mentality. The PML-Q leader said Ms Benazir Bhutto could return to Pakistan and contest elections, but there was a constitutional bar on her becoming prime minister. This, for a change, correctly states the existing position.

But when Chaudhry Shujaat said that Mr Nawaz Sharif couldn’t participate in the elections because he could neither return home nor stand for election for at least 10 years (surely the period must have come down by now?), he was apparently referring to the much talked about but never seen agreement under which Mr Sharif and his family went into exile to Saudi Arabia following the Musharraf coup. Why isn’t the agreement being made public, particularly since the Sharif camp denies that there is any such pact or understanding or that there is a 10-year ban on his return?

The facts should be made public because next year is going to be the year of what Gen Musharraf calls the “mother of all elections” and because after their latest meeting, both Ms Bhutto and Mr Nawaz Sharif have declared their intention to return to Pakistan to take part in the polls. It is time all these things were cleared up.

Something fairly juvenile is also going on in the MMA camp. This relates to the resignation question. What most media comment seems to be missing is the point that the resignations are being offered on what for most people of this country is a non-issue — the women’s protection bill. Should one resign because of a bill that seeks to penalise rapists, Ms Bhutto was reported to have asked in London the other day (or words to that effect).

This reflects the views of most parties in the ARD, including the PML-N that otherwise played a double game during the voting on the bill in parliament but apparently doesn’t believe that this is an issue on which the risk of resigning from the National Assembly and opening the doors to a new crisis should be taken. In fact, if a crisis takes place, the MMA may again help the Musharraf-led government by raising fresh question marks over the elections and when these should be held.

By creating this furore over resignations on the women’s protection bill, the MMA has also helped push real issues into the background, issues such as Balochistan, Nawab Bugti’s brutal killing, provincial autonomy and the violent restlessness in the north-west. The pressure on the government to respond to charges on other matters such as the stock exchange crisis and the handling of privatisation proceeds has also eased.

Everyone is now talking of resignations, which also form the staple of most TV talk shows. Is this a conspiracy between the government and the MMA to divert attention from the war still going on in Balochistan and the Frontier region? Another “noora kushti”? Perhaps the fundamentalists within the military have indicated to their allies in the MMA that if they undertake a serious agitation on the women’s bill, they will urge the government to compromise.

There are other oddities involved. The MMA threatens to resign from the National Assembly, but not from the Senate and the provincial assemblies. It is in coalition with the PML-Q in Balochistan and has given no indication that its men will leave the provincial government. The MMA is in sole control of the Frontier government, and there too it has provided us with no indication that it will resign in protest against the women’s bill. It has, however, said its governments will not implement the bill in their provinces, which will mean another mess. Only the MMA and the maulvis it collects in Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad can understand what really is going on.

Within the MMA, Maulana Fazlur Rahman, whose JUI heads the Frontier government, has said there can be other ways of protesting than resignations. Whether the division this shows within the MMA will stand or be resolved when the alliance’s supreme council meets next week remains to be seen. But certainly Maulana Fazlur Rahman doesn’t sound too happy with what the Jamaat-i-Islami and Qazi Hussain Ahmad are aiming at. The JI on its own has 28 or so seats in the National Assembly, and if it becomes the only MMA component to resign, the government may not feel too threatened. But it is the system, already fragile, about which everyone should be worried about.

The basic point is that our democracy and our politics move at such juvenile levels because those who have ruled over us don’t really believe in democracy and the accountability that it entails. There’s something in us that militates against democracy. Is it our indoctrination in the JI-brand of religion, unashamedly adopted by military regimes and of which civilian elected governments have been too scared to challenge? It should also be remembered that the Nawaz Sharif government, before it was ousted by Gen Musharraf, wanted to steer a bill through parliament that would have enshrined Shariah as the supreme law of the land?

The PML has apologised for its raid on the Supreme Court, but it has said nothing about its Shariah bill or why it openly welcomed the women’s protection bill. The way nationalism has been pushed into the background by our religious identity has played its own part in derailing politics. Feudalism has had its own impact, but it has not perhaps relied on religion as much as it has on sheer force and manipulation to control politics.

It remains our practice to refer to Mr Jinnah when we want to criticise the hold of fundamentalism, although it is about time we as a nation decided on our own where we want to go. But in the context in which this column is framed, it might be of some interest to quote from eminent lawyer and PPP activist Aitzaz Ahsan’s contribution, “Why Pakistan is not a democracy”, in the volume “Divided by Democracy”:

“As early as 1927 he (the Quaid) had supported the Child Marriages Restraint Bill piloted by Rai Haridas Sarda. The bill proposed the adoption of a minimum age for contracting marriages, providing penalties for guardians who gave their minor wards in marriage. The bill was opposed by all the leading Muslim fundamentalists of the subcontinent and even by the Muslim members of the legislative assembly. Nawab Sir Sahibzada Abdul Qayyum from the NWFP, A.H. Ghaznavi from Dhaka, M. Yamin Khan from UP and Maulvi M. Shafi Daudi from Bihar were vocal in their opposition, as it was perceived as infringing upon a fundamental parental right allowed by Islam to give the child away in marriage. Jinnah was undeterred and unrelenting. Passionately he stood his ground: ‘And if we are going to allow ourselves to be influenced by the public opinion that can be created in the name of religion, when we know that religion has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter — I think we must have the courage to say: No, we are not going to be frightened by that’.”*

(* Divided by Democracy, published in the series Cross-border Talks. Series editor David Page. Contributors to this volume, Meghnad Desai and Aitzaz Ahsan. Published 2005, The Lotus Collection, an imprint of Roli Books Pvt Ltd, New Delhi. Printed price Rs295.)

SOME time ago, the governor of Balochistan announced the appointment of an ex-brigadier as vice-chancellor of the University of Balochistan. This is not the first time that an ex-army man has been appointed to the highest academic office at a university in Pakistan. Previously, Punjab University and Quaid-i-Azam universities had vice-chancellors who were former officers.

However, the recent appointment came just a week after an agreement was reached between the Higher Education Commission and the Federation of All Pakistan Universities Academic Staff Association that the government would not appoint ex-military personnel to this post.

The recent action has launched a fierce debate on the state of academic quality and freedom in Pakistan and has been strongly criticised by certain sections. However, it seems to have been accepted by many among the intelligentsia and the academic community in the country.

In addition to fear of reprisal, several misunderstandings about what the position of a vice-chancellor actually entails and what an army general is able to deliver are behind this response.

There is a perception that a general is best able to enforce discipline on the ill-disciplined, sometimes even violent, students and hence he is better qualified than others to become the vice-chancellor. This is based on a faulty understanding of the true role of a vice chancellor who is much more than a disciplinary administrative head. He is the intellectual leader of an academic institution. His primary job is to inspire the faculty and the students to perform well academically. A position of in-charge for campus security reporting to an academic vice-chancellor can do for the security part of the job, and this post could be filled by a military man.

The second argument often advanced for making such appointments is that academic institutions in Pakistan need efficient and effective leadership, and military men, by virtue of their professional experience, are effective leaders. A further corollary of this argument is that professors lack leadership qualities, hence the need for appointing an ex-officer to the post.

This argument basically goes against the basic understanding of what efficient and effective leadership in academia really constitutes. It also goes against several centuries of experience around the world that paints a different picture.

While the military requires rigid discipline, command and control, the academia thrives on difference of opinion and flexibility in thinking. Universities have evolved over several centuries to their present form. They may appear “inefficient” to an outsider with a different frame of mind, but they are optimally designed to do what they need to do. Interfering in their functions will prove counterproductive.

The third argument for making military appointments in the academia is that the general in question has the requisite “degrees” to do the job and command the respect of his academic colleagues. The example given is that of a military man holding a Master’s degree in strategic and war studies that every general — irrespective of his aptitude — picks up en route to becoming a general. This argument is questionable on several counts.

First, a Master’s degree does not qualify an individual to lead an institution of higher learning and research. Second, it does not solve the issue of inspirational leadership that is part and parcel of a VC’s job. Making this argument is like saying that a professor holding a degree in strategic and defence studies is good enough to become a corps commander or even the chief of staff in the Pakistan army. Do we expect junior officers to respect such an appointment?

Given that not much fuss was made at the recent decision, serious questions about the extent to which the country’s intelligentsia has been brain-washed by the propaganda unleashed by the military-bureaucratic-political nexus have arisen. It calls into question the ability to build world-class institutions of higher learning in this country. What is the point of spending billions on creating glorified teaching schools when dissent and free-thinking is suppressed?

A poll conducted by the Pakistan Research Support Network, an organisation that attempts at bringing together academics and others aspiring for the improvement of the state of science and research in Pakistan, has provided some insights into the recent development. The poll’s findings show that 90 per cent of the respondents believed that the appointment of military men, whether serving or retired, as vice-chancellors was a bad omen for the academia in Pakistan. Only five per cent believed that it was a “good” thing while five per cent thought that it was alright to appoint a retired army officer to the post.

Around 16 per cent believed that a military man could be appointed as interim vice-chancellor on a temporary basis (no more than six months) to quell any violence on campus. About 65 per cent of the respondents, however, believed that a military man may only be appointed as a security chief of a university and must report to a civilian-academic vice-chancellor.

With regard to the issue of capability and leadership skills, 76 per cent of the respondents believed that the position of the vice-chancellor required much more than merely administering the university. They thought that an important requirement of being vice-chancellor was to provide intellectual leadership and inspire faculty and students to be more productive researchers and learners.

Following up on that chain of thought, only 4.5 per cent of the respondents believed that an army officer (serving or retired) had the right leadership capabilities to inspire professors and students to work more efficiently and effectively. Only four per cent believed that an academic professor lacks the required administrative and leadership capability to manage academic institutions and only five per cent supported the notion that it is a waste of time for academics and researchers to engage in administration of academic institutions.

What is really striking about these numbers is the overwhelming support for the idea that academic freedom requires a different kind of management style that is not commonly found among the country’s military brass. If the survey results are any indicator of the thought process of Pakistan’s current and future academic leaders, they seem to suggest that the establishment-supported rhetoric of the lack of capability of the civilian mind has little basis in reality.

As many as 90 per cent of the respondents felt that they must take a public position against the current (and future) appointments of military men to Pakistani universities. Seventy-two per cent of the respondents thought that they were deeply concerned about the recent developments while another six per cent felt concerned but thought that voicing their concerns against these trends was none of their business.

Overall, only 10 per cent of the respondents thought that the government of Pakistan really understood what it takes to build quality universities and academic institutions in the country. Conversely, about 47 per cent seemed to think that the HEC understood the meaning of creating quality academic and research institutions.

The results should come as a breath of fresh air for the Pakistani professional community at large and academic professionals in particular, and could provide some food for thought to the government.

With the performance of Pakistan’s universities and research institutions leaving much to be desired, the only objective these military appointments can serve is to destroy any possibilities of creating world-class — or even not-so-world-class — universities and research institutions in Pakistan.

A recent statement by Dr Atta-ur-Rahman, the HEC chairman, noted that Pakistan does not have even a single university among the top 1,000 universities in the world. Putting military men in charge of Pakistani universities and research institutions would ensure that this remains true for eternity.

It would also ensure that our universities would become glorified teaching schools that put emphasis on creating obedient workers and clerks for the twenty-first century or half-baked military academies where ‘rule by stick’ and discipline is promoted at the expense of creative thinking and dissent rather than creating institutions where minds are encouraged to think “out-of-the-box” and souls are enriched through learning.

The writer is a public policy analyst based in Santa Monica, USA.

Email: athar.osama@gmail.com