Profiling Pakistan at 60

THE achievement of Pakistan was something of a miracle. The demand for a separate Muslim homeland was opposed tooth and nail by the Hindu majority, which had India’s best organised party, the Congress, led by the formidable Mahatma Gandhi, and was also dominant in commerce, education, and the news media.

On the other hand, Indian Muslims suffered from disunity and were fragmented on parochial and provincial lines. The British colonial administration at that time, under the Labour Party, had close links with the Congress. In the international arena, there was scepticism about the wisdom of breaking up India on religious lines.

And yet, Pakistan was achieved after a relatively brief struggle of seven years when the Muslim masses forged an unprecedented unity under the flag of the Muslim League. It was one great man, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who made it possible. His matchless leadership galvanised the Muslims and Pakistan emerged on the world map on August 14, 1947.

The Pakistani people greatly love and esteem their Quaid-i-Azam. But it is ironic that many of the ideals that he stood for have been all but forgotten in the years that have followed since independence. In fact, some quarters, notably the religious parties that had opposed the very idea of Pakistan, have been trying to distort the Quaid-i-Azam’s legacy and have been seeking to rewrite history according to their own predilections and preferences.The fact is that the Quaid was a democrat, a liberal, a progressive and a modernist. He was appalled by the politics of “gherao and jalao” and he did not believe in strikes, civil disobedience and the breaking of law for any purpose.

The Quaid sought to protect the national rights of the Muslims of South Asia and he can be described as a Muslim nationalist. His approach was secular and he was the very antithesis of a typical mullah. He was a product of modern, western education and had a cosmopolitan outlook. He believed in emancipation of women and their equal participation in all spheres. He was passionate in advocating the rights of minorities and had always assured them of fair treatment as equal citizens of Pakistan. In foreign policy matters, the Quaid-i-Azam wanted friendship and cooperation with neighbors like India and with all other nations of the world.

This was the legacy of the Quaid-i-Azam. In this context, his speech of August 11, 1947 – on the eve of the creation of Pakistan – is highly relevant. On that occasion, he had also said that he wanted to make Pakistan “one of the greatest nations in the world.” It is evident that we have not lived up to the example of the Quaid and his ideals and expectations.

On this 60th anniversary of the creation of Pakistan, many even have a sense of foreboding and despair about where the country is heading for. Across the country, we have suicide bombers, violent sectarianism, extremism, provincialism, corruption and nepotism. The writ of the state is being challenged not only in the tribal areas and in some parts of Baluchistan but also in incidents like that of the Lal Masjid in the heart of the federal capital. The opposition leaders keep issuing calls for strikes every other day for one reason or the other, unmindful of the loss to the national economy and the hardship caused to the daily wage earners and others.

Pakistan’s political evolution has been disappointing. There has been poor governance and arbitrary rule. Corrupt and inefficient democratic regimes have invited military takeovers all too often. The blame has to be placed on politicians as well as Bonapartists in the armed forces. It was the charade of democracy from 1953 to 1958 that led to the first military takeover, which many had welcomed. In 1977, opposition politicians like Asghar Khan openly invited the armed forces to overthrow the government, which was accused of vote rigging. Some of these politicians became cabinet Ministers after the military takeover. In 1999, Benazir Bhutto, Imran Khan and other politicians welcomed the military takeover. Many leading politicians are a part of General Pervez Musharraf’s administration.

However, the fact remains that whatever might be its achievements in the short run, military rule is always an aberration. The periodic derailment of the constitutional process by the military has stunted Pakistan’s political evolution.

World opinion has now turned decisively against autocratic rule. Moreover, the political situation Pakistan makes an unfavourable contrast with India, with whom comparisons are inevitable.

In Pakistan itself, pro-democracy sentiment has been growing notably. The news media and the intelligentsia have mobilised public opinion in favour of democracy. The two leading opposition parties – the PPP and the Muslim League (N) – signed a Charter of Democracy last year demanding democratic, constitutional rule and return of the army to the barracks. It is a welcome development that everyone is now swearing by democracy. No doubt, the spirited movement launched recently by the lawyers to uphold the independence of the judiciary has strengthened the cause of constitutional rule.

But democracy can succeed only when the people in general and the politicians in particular possess a democratic temperament. This means that the political parties must show tolerance and a willingness to coexist with each other. They must accept election results gracefully: there has to be a willingness on the part of the losers to let the winners run the administration for the stipulated term. Moreover, differences of opinion must not weaken the national spirit and there must be a strong commitment to protect the country’s independence and integrity.

The mainstream parties must also be unequivocal in opposing extremism and coercion in politics and any attempt at making a state within a state, such as the present attempts by religious zealots to impose Talibanisation on the country, which represents the negation of much that the Quaid-i-Azam stood for.

If the foregoing conditions were not met, it would be naïve to hope that everything would settle down once the army withdraws to the barracks and politicians take charge. Let us suppose that Benazir becomes prime minister again. Will this end the Taliban phenomenon in the Pukhtoon tribal areas, and the sectarian violence fanned by religious fanatics all over the country? Will not the mullah parties start a fresh agitation to impose their obscurantist ideas on the state? In fact, other opposition parties will also probably continue the politics of disruption.

This vicious cycle can end only if the main political parties agree to adopt policies of moderation and mutual accommodation. The media has to play a key role in this regard. In the more recent past, a section of it has often been found glorifying extremists and giving them prime-time coverage. This greatly harms the image of Pakistan and fuels fanaticism and anarchy. Some journalists seem to think that they must criticise the government in order to prove their independence. But far more important is what is in the national interest. Clearly, the media has to show a balance in reporting.

The intelligentsia and the educated middle classes too must play an increasingly effective role for the stability of the country. They can mobilise public opinion in favour of making Pakistan a forward-looking country with an emphasis on modern education and technology. The country cannot isolate itself from the rest of the world by turning its back on modernisation or becoming a narrow-minded, regressive and fanatical society, allowing safe havens to terrorists.

While the foregoing critical analysis of Pakistan’s political evolution is essential, one must not go to the other extreme and fall in the pit of despondency and despair. Over a period of time, disgruntled politicians in Pakistan have made a habit of building up public discontent against the rulers of the day by painting a totally negative picture of all developments in the country. Their purpose has been to stir up a countrywide agitation to secure a change of regime. It is very unfortunate that such sustained negative propaganda seems to have produced a national culture of cynicism and disenchantment.

Looking at the bright side of the picture, the first and foremost point that needs to be made is that we are free; we have a homeland and we have a national identity. Secondly, most people in Pakistan are better off than what they or their forefathers were before independence. In pre-partition India, few Muslims ever made it to high positions in any sphere, whether in government, commerce, industry, education or sports. Here, after independence, the field has been open in all areas. Thirdly, Pakistan has made significant progress in industrialisation, commerce, agriculture, banking, education, news media and in gender equality.

Pakistan has become one of the world’s eight nuclear powers and the only one in the Islamic world, thanks to the brilliance of its scientists. Pakistanis are excelling in nearly all disciplines, and millions of them working abroad are admired for their talent and hard work.Living standards in Pakistan today are definitely better than what they were in 1947 and this applies to the poorer sections of society as well. At the time of independence, the typical poor family had neither electricity nor running water, whereas these facilities are more or less taken for granted today. Unlike India, even the poorest people in Pakistan wear shoes and clothes and many possess watches, radios and television. Out of a population of 160 million, over 60 million now possess cell phones. In fact, things could be much better if we could curtail the growth of our population, as has already been done by several Muslim countries like Bangladesh ad Indonesia.

Pakistan has had a higher per capita income than India since the 1960s. The Asian Development Bank’s latest report says that Pakistan has a per capita annual income of HK$ 13,230 as against China’s HK$ 11,502 and India’s HK$ 9,346. (Dawn, 1-8-2007) This is quite commendable. Pakistan also attracted a record foreign investment of six billion dollars this year. Exports have risen from about one billion dollar in 1971-72 to over $17 billion today and foreign exchange reserves and remittances are at an all-time high.

Pakistan’s infrastructure has been growing impressively with new airports, ports, flyovers, motorways, bridges, hospitals, schools and colleges coming up all over the country. Agricultural production has made big strides. Pakistan is now producing four times more wheat, rice, cotton and sugarcane than in 1947. The news media has expanded beyond expectation in terms of newspapers, radio and television stations. The quality of journalism has also improved significantly. Literature, culture, fashion, music and sports are flourishing.

Pakistani women have better representation in parliament and other elective bodies than in most other countries in the world. Women head some Pakistani political parties. There are women getting commission in the army and some are flying jets in the Air Force. A woman is Governor of the State Bank. Much has yet to be done to improve the lot of women in Pakistan, but surely they have come a long way since independence.

In the realm of foreign affairs, Pakistan’s strategic location and its key position in the Islamic world have made it a much-sought-after country in global politics. Indeed, few countries in the Third World have such a high-profile role as Pakistan.

In sum, there is no need to despair or write off Pakistan. Once we get our political act together – which is possible if the main parties and the army reach a consensus – we are capable of realising the Quaid-i-Azam’s dream of making Pakistan one of the greatest nations in the world.

The writer is a former ambassador.

The obstinate system

THE bulk of our repressed nation rejoiced on July 20, 2007, when the Supreme Court of Pakistan rediscovered its independence. So did I, but with trepidation. How would General Musharraf react — in spite of his statement that he would honour the verdict? How would the system react to this frontal challenge?

The suspense is over now, and the answer is very clear. The system, revolving round General Musharraf, does not like the judiciary to play its constitutional role, and is angry at heart. It is bent on putting the clock back, even if this means tragic consequences for the country.

The target of getting elected in uniform from the existing assemblies is being announced as before like a challenge to the nation. There are many other indications, from the appointment of Justice (Retd) Qayyum Malik as attorney-general to the threat of emergency.

What is this system? It is a collusive mechanism that has foisted three non-democratic partners (the waderas, the army and the mullahs) on the country. Its history started with that of Pakistan. Sensing it, the Quaid in 1948 told the army officers at Staff College, Quetta, to obey civilian authority. Ignoring the advice, Brig Akbar Khan conceived it in 1949 with his plans for an army take-over, but could not deliver due to the failure of the Rawalpindi conspiracy in 1951.

Pushed by the murder of Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan in 1951 and the merger of two offices (commander-in-chief and defence minister) in the uniformed person of General Ayub Khan in 1954, the system took root in 1958, and stealthily grew under the shade of the doctrine of necessity. After the full blossoming of the joint feudal-army muscle it fatally stabbed the non-feudal democratic East Pakistan to acquire unhindered growth in feudal (West) Pakistan.

With a very visible mullah on board, the system rapidly gained confidence by progressively trampling on the rural mass of tenants, misguided urban sycophants and the sound inheritance of state institutions from the British.

Trying to dig in till eternity, the misconceived over-confidence of the system stabbed its accomplice state organ on March 9, 2007, but the attempt misfired, and the rusty shackles began to crack. Between then and now, it is confirmed that the system has not liked the jingle of the breaking fetters.

The confirmation is provided by the famous legal maxim: “Men may lie, but the circumstances do not.” The abysmal circumstances of today’s Pakistan have fully established that this system was based, nurtured, sustained and advanced on falsehood and tall claims. It (a) was never transparent, (b) operated though palace intrigues, (c) deceived the people, and (d) operated beyond the reach of public accountability.

Today, these four factors are more active than ever. The badly executed Lal Masjid operation and the hide-and-seek Musharraf-Benazir deal are just two glaring examples.

The four military dictators were the pivot of this system with the other two elements alternating to either share power or stage a mock fight against the pivot. Its typical illustration was the mullah’s life-saving support for the system through the Seventeenth Amendment and the elections to the Senate (the PPP in a mock fight), and the current deal of the PPP with Musharraf (mullahs in a mock fight) to save the system from crumbling. This clever strategy has sustained the system for more than half a century and is now in top gear.

In addition, the post-March 9 situation is now revealing the darkest side of the triangular system. The army is shooting Pakistanis for questionable reasons; the mullah’s craftiness is balancing one foot in the power pan of the NWFP and Balochistan and the other with Musharraf’s opponents; and the feudal politicians are looking for new buyers for their loyalties.

None of them is mindful of a new reality that the people, who were previously silent, are beginning to enter the arena as players, led by the best segment of black coats and ties. Few in number, scattered, disorganised and disoriented they may be, but they are determined.

The system, however, is behaving as if nothing has substantially changed, and the march for reform can be reversed with old tactics. It is thus fighting back to regain its lost grip.

How far can the people-system confrontation go? Very far indeed. The system has already shown its red tooth and claw in the two blood baths in Karachi on May 12 and in Islamabad in Lal Masjid. In time, each one of its components will justify its ruthless actions. The shooting by the army will be glorified as defence duty; the mullah will shoot from both fronts (while changing sides) under varying interpretations of jihad; and the socio-political power mould of the feudal lord will position him to act like a warlord.There are external forces eager to support each element whose short-term ambitions overshadowed national interests over the last 60 years. It will not be any different now. The system can, and will, do anything to stay in power, whether this means striking political deals, carrying out political assassinations, or imposing emergency and martial law. It can even push the country to civil war as it did in 1971.

The present is the direct result of the system’s past behaviour. Today, we see security operations in Balochistan, Waziristan and even in settled areas, rocket attacks on state installations, kidnapping and murder of locals, foreigners and state functionaries, suicide attacks and trigger-happy groups. All the basic ingredients of a civil war are there.“Credibility” and “transparency” are two casualties. If there is a blast, it is anybody’s guess whether it was caused by the CIA, RAW, Taliban, sectarian extremists, dissidents or the secret agents of the system itself.

The above-mentioned prospect is linked to the obstinacy of the system. Such a mindset once played havoc with the nation in 1971. If it persists there is bound to be a second debacle.

As of now, the system is defiantly stubborn. The people, on the other hand, are pinning all their hopes on the Supreme Court, which has a limited role, like an umbrella protecting the players underneath but leaving the game to them. We do see some players from the Bar since March 9, but the rank and file of the nation has still to be organised for a long and arduous fight.

The system is so deep-rooted and powerful that a crushed and demoralised society like ours can ill afford a frontal confrontation. We have to learn from the law of nature to look for the weak spot of a mighty monster, which is invariably provided by nature. In addition, we have to be wary of the system’s Trojan horses amidst us, which are the double dealing political parties, professing to stand for the people, but actually bolstering the system.

Our political parties have been an integral part of the system, providing vital structural support and fully enjoying its fruits. Some of them were its creations, while others were willing collaborators. They are to be blamed as much as the military dictators for making Pakistan a failed state. The same mud sticks on the faces of Benazir and Nawaz Sharif.

Even now, after the huge number of people protesting against the system since March 9, Benazir is offering her party’s blood to Musharraf, openly announcing her choice in the people-system confrontation. If the people want to win this fight they have to shed, discard or bypass the existing political parties, which cannot be trusted.

Like any other supposedly invincible Titan, this system, too, has its Achilles heel, and is mortally afraid of the people’s power. It has been rattled by the glimpse it got of this force during the judicial crisis. Now it is straining every nerve to pre-empt its organised reassertion. That is the weak spot worth our attention.

For that, the nation should bypass undemocratic political parties hinging on personalities and develop a new democratic leadership from the grass roots through multi-tier open elections at the district, provincial and the national levels.

That is the only way to organise people’s power and establish a democratic mould that would usher in a sincere leadership on a permanent basis. Only this power can ensure freedom from military dictators, feudalism, mullahism, opportunist politicians, and above all, this system. Unlike the past 60 years, the umbrella of the Supreme Court is now available to protect the grassroots and allow the growth of this power.

masudmufti@hotmail.com

Whither provincial autonomy?

SIXTY years on from the birth of a new country and a new nation, how do the people of smaller provinces view Independence Day? Do they really believe they are free? Are they proud to call themselves Pakistani? Do they think theirs is a respectable federation among the comity of nations?

Since Partition in 1947, Pakistan has had a chequered history. The nascent state started its journey with mass communal riots, killing of innocent men, women and children, the destruction of property, an unprecedented influx of refugees and bitter disputes with India over Kashmir, Junagarh, canal waters, evacuee property and the withholding of assets.

The big blow came when the man who fathered the new nation died without accomplishing the great goal he cherished.Though the resolution of March 23, 1940, envisaged “sovereign” and “autonomous” federating units in the country, the issue of provincial autonomy was put on the backburner. The unforeseen issues which emerged immediately after Partition shaped the country’s political and social texture in ways that could not have been imagined by Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

After his death, there were no leaders who could carry on his mission though he had given a clear roadmap. The people at the helm of affairs found it difficult to cope with the problems posed by poor physical and financial resources and the vacuum created by Jinnah’s death.

The country went through turbulent times, right from its birth to its ignominious defeat and division in 1970. The nationalists argue that had there been provincial autonomy, the country would have averted the division.

Tracing the roots of demand for provincial autonomy leads us to the Muslim League’s promises to the provinces before Partition.

According to Dr Rafique Afzal, former dean of the faculty of social sciences at Quaid-i-Azam University, the demand for provincial autonomy had become part of the official creed of the All-India Muslim League in the 1920s. The Government of India Act of 1935 provided for provincial autonomy, and it was this part of the Act that was put in practice from 1937 to 1947.

From 1940 onward, the Muslim League’s demand was for an independent Muslim state based on the Lahore Resolution; but there were many lapses, particularly during and after the Cabinet Mission of 1946. Many a time, the provincial Muslim League leadership was given a free hand to express views that were hardly in the line with the core demand of the All-India Muslim League.

After independence, however, the Muslim League leaders ignored all this. Their knowledge of statecraft and the rights of federating units was such that they failed to frame a constitution — the basic document needed to run the affairs of the state. The nationalists felt that the new rulers deliberately delayed constitution-making to marginalise the provinces.

The polity was marred by the absence of a constitution and long years of bureaucratic and despotic rule. No serious effort was made to extricate the country from this conundrum and to give full autonomy to the provinces.

However, post-independence politicians chose to enforce the Objectives Resolution on March 7, 1949, instead of a full-fledged constitution, as a guiding principle. Few voices were heard for the eradication of the colonial style of governance and the recovery of genuine independence. Thus, as the saying goes, the “kaley angrez” took over from the “gora angrez”.

Nationalists pointed out in their writings that Muslim leaders in Bengal and Sindh had backed the Muslim League on the grounds that it would ensure provincial autonomy. Therefore, they withdrew their demand for the complete independence of Bengal and Sindh.

According to The New York Times (February 27, 1947), “the Bengal Provincial Muslim League leadership openly advocated for quite some time, the idea of an independent united Bengal without any immediate directive to the contrary from the central party leadership. During the same period, the president of the Sindh Muslim League is reported to have favoured the setting up of a sovereign Muslim state in Sindh.”

Though efforts were made by the Bhutto government to give some autonomy to the provinces, it was not sufficient as the Concurrent List was to be devolved after 10 years under the 1973 Constitution which was also promulgated on August 14, 1973.

Thus this day also marks the promulgation of the current Constitution.

Until recently, it seemed that the Musharraf government would transfer up to 35 subjects out of a total of 47 on the Concurrent List to the provinces to give them more autonomy, but, unfortunately, this has not materialised owing to one or the other pretext.

In this connection, the eighteenth constitutional amendment bill had been planned, but the government failed to table it in parliament due to lack of consensus on the quantum of autonomy.

The bill was aimed at resolving the issue of provincial autonomy and resource distribution formula between the federation and the federating units. There are several ministries and departments working simultaneously in the same areas in Islamabad and the provincial capitals, putting a huge burden on the national exchequer. Some of these include: food and agriculture, health, education, sports and culture, housing and works, information and broadcasting, narcotics control, tourism and religious affairs.

In 60 years, no government has been able to decide who should collect and spend the following taxes — surcharge on petroleum, labour tax, workers’ welfare tax, workers’ profit participation tax, income tax, excise duty, sales tax and customs duty. It is obvious that the resources of the smaller provinces are being taken away and spent outside their areas. Jobs are given to other than the residents of these areas.

Sindh and Balochistan are rich in resources. Had disbursement been made judiciously, the two provinces would have been the most developed areas and there would have been no need for subventions doled out by the centre.

Now, more than ever before, there is heightened public awareness of provincial rights as the centre continues to deny implementation of the Muslim League’s promise of “sovereignty” and “autonomy” to the federating units.

manzoor.chandio@dawn.com