Locating freedoms

More commonly, a relatively independent judiciary, a free press and parliamentary debates ensure a degree of procedural freedoms — of speech and association, from arbitrary incarceration and systematic torture — not known in the other systems of power. The margin of substantive freedoms — from hunger and dispossession, illiteracy and vagrancy, etc — tends to be extremely narrow under this system. — Eqbal Ahmad (1980)

POLITICAL movements have arguably found four major expressions in Pakistan’s history. First there was the Pakistan movement largely revolving around Muslim identity issues. Second was the Bengali national identity that took the form of an assertive mobilisation for autonomy and independence. Third was the formation of the PPP which led to the radicalisation of the masses in the seventies. Fourth is the ongoing struggle by the lawyers.

The launch of the PPP in 1967, with the popular slogan of roti, kapra aur makan, was perhaps the first political expression of substantive freedom in Pakistan. The association of the masses with the PPP in the early period was largely influenced by an inspiration for structural change. This political stance was targeted at reclamation of the political identity, redistribution of material resources like land and access to essential services.

The ideological precept behind the nationalisation process initiated by the PPP regime was meant to respond to basic public needs. Though the romantic and dramatic nationalisation could not deliver much, it contributed to consciousness of bringing about change in proprietary and ownership patterns. This was the beginning of a paradigm shift from state control to state concessions, which predominantly constituted the existential reality of the PPP.

The process of decolonisation in post-independence Pakistan was mobilised by the PPP and the movement of the seventies. Freedom movements generate a sense of belonging in disinherited selves, and the PPP created this feeling in society by initiating change in repressive structures.

Conversely, the ongoing struggle revolving around justice and the media becomes a proponent of procedural freedoms. Its outreach as a rallying point is limited to urban centres and professional groups. Since it isolates itself from or overlooks the question of substantive freedoms, it has critical bearing on the formation of a politically spirited movement addressing structural injustices. These structural injustices could not be mitigated through procedural freedoms. Similarly, the sensibility of people suffering from traumatic repression has to be included in the discourse of the ongoing struggle.Resistance to repression is innate and forms the core of every freedom movement. If the basis of a struggle is protection, fortification and revival of the forces or institutions chronically at the service of oppressive dispensations, it will not invoke the innate general response to repression. Our society’s institutional structures are retainers of historical and contemporary repression. The mass bondage is being regulated through a despotic legalistic regime.

The social reality produced by the state institutions has shown time and again that justice is a wider causality. The sovereign is a ‘stranger’ and the institutions, as executing agencies, are serving the rule of this ‘stranger’. The aura of well being shrouding the ongoing struggle emanates from the ideology of ‘good governance’ — an ideological expansion of the imperial metropolis!

The question is whether institutional strengthening can be equated with people’s liberation. State institutions, commonly viewed as exclusionary, inaccessible and non-representative in their nature and character, do not enjoy the trust of the people. Since control and coercion are harvested through state institutions in Pakistan, their general perception is unpromising. They are largely viewed as anti-people and pro-power.

Demands by lawyers for procedural freedoms do not touch the base of structural injustices. That is why their campaign is increasingly viewed as an elitist activity. Their struggle has not cut across class lines, a necessary element in the formation of a movement. Instead of seeking popular mobilisation and public control through political institutions — parties, youth and labour organisations — it sees the judiciary as a major force for social change. It is like believing that the armed forces can be a key agent for social change. Both these concepts undermine the sovereignty of the people, and therefore that of parliament.

In hindsight, the radicalisation of the seventies was perhaps the first watershed in Pakistan’s history in terms of introducing an agenda of substantive freedoms. Within the framework of Eqbal’s distinction between procedural and substantive freedoms, the two contemporary political expressions have to be examined to understand the recent standpoint of Bar leaders regarding political forces duly mandated to decide the destiny of the people. The very distinction functions as a creative brain-teaser to un-layer the undercurrents of the ongoing struggle.

Slogan chanting and marching rallies do not constitute a movement. Political, cultural and economic elements are the sine qua non for the constitution of a movement. The ongoing struggle is pitted against the political forces antagonistically. It emphasises the strengthening of institutions without any demand for change in their nature and character. This is the dark side of the divide. The struggle for institutional strengthening could be upheld by the common people had they enjoyed beneficial deliverance by the state institutions.

Substantive freedoms cannot be realised without radical and structural changes in postcolonial state institutions. Social stability rests on such revamped institutions. Redefining their authority and jurisdiction, and redesigning their structure, are the aims worth striving for. A realignment by the intelligentsia, educated class and professional groups with the democratically elected political forces can help achieve these goals. But unfortunately, the institutional ideals and praxis of protest upheld by the ongoing struggle strongly point towards the exclusionary mindset of its protagonists.

It is a tragic irony that political workers have contributed to the current struggle with their blood in Karachi and Islamabad. This irony was further heightened when these willing victims staked their claims of substantive freedoms on elections and they were cold-shouldered by the legal fraternity which announced a boycott. Now that the people have delivered a historic verdict, some self-proclaimed guardians of public interest are active in trying to discredit the importance of the people’s choice.

The army and the judiciary have clearly defined jurisdictions under the constitutional dispensation but parliament is sovereign. Neither military dictators nor judicial monarchs can be the true liberators. A stable and sane society can only be established through the supremacy of parliament achieved in the course of a continuous political process. It is the responsibility of every conscientious citizen to strengthen democratic institutions for the ultimate realisation of the dream of substantive freedoms. It is with the decolonisation of the power and justice systems that the liberation of the people can be actualised.

New age of the media

THESE days Pakistan seems to be one of the most ‘happening’ places in the world. The winds of change have blown back democracy and it is hoped that other positive changes will also take place. A lot of the positive change can be attributed to the media. Coverage of civil society’s resistance and activities of political parties is what created sufficient hype which then led to the change we currently see in Pakistan.

There are many who believe that the media owes its freedom to President Musharraf who expanded the media while he wore the two hats of the president and the army chief. It was during his tenure that the number of television and radio channels was increased. Of course the intention was not to have an independent media but to have television and radio channels and newspapers galore that could help create an alternative image of the country abroad. The first chance the media gave to Musharraf in terms of deciding how far he wanted the media to act freely, he cracked down and started to throttle it.

What the president did not realise was that the media’s expansion took place in a new age in which it was not really possible to throttle information. Technology has really changed the face of the media. If anyone decides to crack down on television channels there is always the internet which will keep these channels alive. True, the news will not reach the masses but it will reach the critical communities of people or civil society. Most television channels, especially those popular with the common man, were shut down but some could still be viewed over the internet. Expatriate Pakistanis definitely had access to news, some of which kept filtering into the country through personal contacts.

The internet has proved to be a remarkable technology that is difficult to beat. A host of cyber discussion groups and blogs popped up during the troubled times, keeping a critical part of society connected. Participants of the movement launched by lawyers and civil society remained linked through chat groups, constantly providing and sharing information and even holding discussions on various issues.

Given that web access is limited in Pakistan due to lack of education, technology and monetary wherewithal, it is difficult for the internet to have an impact on the masses. However, the important point is that new technologies make it difficult for any government to completely stop all flow of information. This cannot be done even in Iran and China. You block one site and another one pops up. It is almost like what happens with jihadi groups. You close one and it reopens under another name.

Such a media cannot be controlled through the ISPR or men whose core training is in ordering men in a battlefield. This media cannot be directed even through the power of an iron fist. There is now little tolerance for hooliganism. As such it is good to hear that the new government may be appointing someone who knows how to engage the media and has been a part of it. It is hoped that the new administration also develops a big heart and tolerates criticism. Unfortunately, there are a few who get critical of those with divergent points of view.

A critical analysis of a government denotes the amount of interest people are taking in the political process. In any case, it is not necessary for people to not criticise and agree with every policy. A wise government will always listen to all views and select ideas which could help it. No one should expect his or her ideas to be taken lock, stock and barrel.

But technology is not the only new development as far as Pakistan’s media is concerned. There are other developments as well such as a growth in the number of establishment agents who comfortably mingle with the rest of the crowd. In fact, gone are the days when the politically liberal and progressive crowd had the comfort of operating in relative isolation. The old dictatorships used crude methods such as using state-owned television channels or newspapers for propaganda. It was easy to spot people who were on the government’s payroll.

Now there are journalists who might criticise certain policies of the state but support others. Such a ploy is used to build the credibility of individuals and this helps in communicating with the larger world. The world of Pakistani media is quite fragmented. The establishment has actively cultivated certain people and put them in key places. These individuals will always work for the establishment and can remain silent like the ‘sleeper’ cells of the jihadis, which means they could keep mum during a critical time and then open fire when the establishment wants them to.

The downside of technological expansion is that the agents of the establishment can also reach out to people and divide public opinion on a key issue. These individuals use the internet or other facilities to propagate a certain perspective which might not necessarily be true but can convert readers, listeners and viewers to a particular opinion. The past few years have seen an increase in the number of people in the media on the payroll of different intelligence agencies. The problem here is not of pro-establishment views but of using state resources to give certain people a credibility which is then used to destabilise the political process or society at large.

The process of installing agents becomes easier in a government that lacks transparency and has complete control over information. The government can regulate distribution of information and use this tool to build the credibility of certain individuals versus others.

This approach has of course hurt the country in the long run. Since dissemination of information is controlled, the more capable people may be denied the chance to access information and analyse it. The result is mediocrity and substandard analyses which are never in the country’s interest.

The more important issue for the new government to grapple with is to provide more comfortable access to information. Since there are multiple channels of information, it is not difficult to engage in data or information mining. However, the level of accessibility and friendliness of the government will always result in better analysis. I remember a brief chat with a former DG ISPR on some issue relating to gunfire in the Frontier province. He tried to distract me by suggesting that nothing had happened and it was part of the tribal culture to use guns on any occasion. Little did he know that given multiple sources of information I would get my info but his answer would put the government in bad light.

It would help the new regime to make rules regarding access to information. This will certainly improve transparency and build confidence amongst the general public. In the longer term this will solve the problem of agents of the establishment that lie in wait for the regime to make a mistake so they can then launch their propaganda. A greater friendship with the media will always help.

The writer is an independent strategic and

political analyst.

ayesha.ibd@gmail.com

Uplifting the judiciary

ONCE in a while a judge arrives on the scene to pull the judiciary out of the decadence in which it is stuck. In South Asia this is rare because judges feel safe staying within the precincts of caution and convention. Still, some judges in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have challenged the establishment, no doubt suffering in the process.

One such example is that of Pakistan’s Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry who has freed the judiciary from the military control which the courts have generally felt. He was no hero but he became one when the top five army officers badgered him to resign and he refused to do so.

President Pervez Musharraf, then also the army chief, dismissed him, humiliated him and detained him and his family in their house without any outside contact. Even when Musharraf’s party, the PML-Q, was routed at the polls he did not release Chaudhry. It was a vendetta by the military dictator against an ordinary person.

The first order issued by Yusuf Raza Gilani, Pakistan’s new prime minister, after taking the oath of office secured Chaudhry’s immediate release. His restoration and that of the 50-plus judges who refused to take an oath of allegiance to Musharraf is a challenge for the new government.

That both Asif Ali Zardari, co-chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party and Nawaz Sharif, chairman of the PML-N, have pledged to reinstate them within a month is an assurance on which their government’s credibility rests.

The mood of the people, particularly the lawyers, is such that the government will not be able to function until the judges are restored. The courage shown by Pakistan’s nascent democracy so far is laudable. Yet, going back to the status quo ante will be the real test.

The judiciary in Bangladesh rose to the occasion when it gave the death sentence to the military officers who had assassinated Mujibur Rahman, the father of the nation. It is because of politics that they have escaped the sentence so far. A new people’s movement to bring to trial all the war criminals may show how far the judiciary in a military-guided government can go against the mullahs and the maulvis who have not been touched so far.

India is fortunate to have had an independent judiciary since independence. But two judges, H.R. Khanna of the Supreme Court and Jagmohan Lal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court, raised it to great heights at a time when the judiciary was timid and when it was a fashion to feather one’s own nest. Khanna, during the emergency, spoke the truth knowing well the consequences he would face. He differed with his other four colleagues and upheld the inviolability of fundamental rights. He was superseded and he resigned in protest.

Yet his judgment gave hope to the people of India that there were judges to uphold the truth even when the tallest in the country had compromised to stay in office. Khanna told the nation that the fundamental values of a democratic society demanded that every person must display a degree of vigilance and willingness to sacrifice. This is still a distant goal for India.

Sinha of the Allahabad High Court unseated the then prime minister, Indira Gandhi, for having used the official machinery during her election campaign in Uttar Pradesh. He debarred her from holding any elective office for six years.

The law was clear that any assistance sought from a government servant “for the furtherance of the prospects” of a candidate’s election was a corrupt practice. Yashpal Kapoor, Mrs Gandhi’s officer on special duty, had worked for her during the election and the UP official had built rostrums from where she addressed rallies. Sinha told me then that he had nearly rejected the stay order because of his irritation over the harassment of his stenographer at the hands of intelligence men. He ultimately gave a 21-day stay order to give the Congress time to elect another leader.

Both Khanna and Sinha died earlier this month. But the nation has already forgotten them and their contribution to the judiciary’s independence. A few days ago, senior lawyers held a thinly attended meeting at Delhi to pay tribute to Khanna. Sinha’s role remained unmentioned. The two would not have expected memorial meetings because they were not after fame but the precedence of the law over government fiat. They did not deviate from the path of truth, and neither did Chaudhry in Pakistan.

Despite such examples, the judiciary in South Asia is losing sheen. People’s faith in finding justice is weakening, not only due to inordinate delays in getting cases heard but also the increasing impression that judges can be managed. Clients and lawyers reportedly conspire to have hearings fixed before a particular judge. The word ‘corruption’ was not heard some years ago. Today it is on everyone’s lips.

Not long ago, judgments were pro-people, pro-weak and pro-environment. Laws were interpreted in such a manner that the common man got relief and greenery was protected against marauding builders. The judiciary, particularly after globalisation, has tended to side with wealth, power and those who destroy the flora and fauna. The judiciary has also tried to arrogate to itself authority which belongs to the legislatures.

This was understandable in Pakistan where the military had cast its shadow on the thinking of judges. The ‘doctrine of necessity’ cited by the highest court to justify military coups showed how the desire for self-protection, the desire for survival, had influenced the judiciary too.

Yet, the judiciary in India with all its power — at times it has strayed into the exclusive domains of parliament and the executive — has faltered when popular expectations have been different. Sometimes one gets the feeling that judges, sitting in their ivory towers, are more concerned with the law than justice. They used to rise above technicalities.

Probably the larger question that needs an answer is whether some of them should have been appointed to the bench at all. The atmosphere becomes murkier when India’s Law Minister H.R. Bhardwaj says in parliament that appointees’ qualifications should include political affiliation or leaning. This is going back to the pre-emergency days of Mrs Indira Gandhi when ‘commitment’ was the most important requirement for entry to the judiciary.

In Pakistan, the commitment was to the military till the other day because of the absence of democracy. Bangladesh is still a grey area. But for Law Minister Bhardwaj to say that “political affiliation or leaning” will be considered in the selection of judges gives a peep into the Congress mindset. I am amazed at the collective silence of political parties and bar associations. At least I have begun to develop a sense of insecurity and injustice.

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.

How to counter Islamophobia

THE recently concluded OIC meeting focused mainly on what it perceives to be the rising Islamophobia in the world. A report presented at the OIC said, “The Muslim world has created a plan to defend its religion from political cartoonists and bigots.” The report concluded that Islam is under attack and that a defence must be mounted.

The Senegal summit deliberated on legal measures against those who insult their religion and its sacred symbols. It resolved that there should be a “legal instrument” to crack down on defamation of Islam, but it is unclear what kind of legal action could be taken. One view is that laws should be formulated as exist in Europe which prohibit anti-Semitic rhetoric.

There is widespread reaction in Muslim countries to the blasphemous cartoons in the Danish press, the writings of Ayyan Hirsi Ali and an anti-Islam film made by a right-wing Dutch politician. Another Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh was assassinated when he made a movie criticising Islam. Angry protestors in Muslim countries have been damaging their own property, observing strikes and raising hysterical slogans. But no one answers the question: what difference does this make to the countries where these works are produced? This shows the inability of Muslim leaders to counter the propaganda against Islam.

The OIC leaders should realise that no law can stop people from expressing their views. Muslims cannot impose their own value system on the rest of the world. The West has produced a number of movies, books and articles critical of personalities held in high esteem in Christianity and Judaism. Freedom of expression is upheld as a fundamental right. It is futile to seek respect from them for the Holy Prophet of Islam. Anti-Semitic laws do not protect Judaism from criticism. They can only be invoked when Jews are criticised as a race. It is significant that the Danish and Dutch governments do not approve of these offending cartoons or films but are helpless to do anything about them in view of their freedom of expression laws.

The OIC should not give importance to inflammatory views as they are better left ignored. On the other hand, projection of the positive contributions of Muslim societies would be a more effective strategy to counter the attacks of detractors.

Former Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid had rightly advised: “Too many Muslims fail to grasp Islam, which teaches one to be tolerant towards others and to understand their value system. The essence of Islam is encapsulated in the words of the Quran: ‘For you your religion; for me mine.’ That is the essence of tolerance.”

Indian Muslim scholar Maulana Wahiduddin Khan had also endorsed this view of Islamic pluralism: “Muslims mistakenly regard it as their duty to stop any visual depiction of Prophet Mohammad. This is untrue. It is the followers of Islam who are forbidden to do so in order to discourage idolatry. Moreover, Islam forbids imposing its beliefs on people of other faith. Even in Muslim countries, Muslims cannot impose their laws and culture on others.”

The iconography discourse has changed its course in Muslim societies over the last 1,400 years. Most Muslims agree that Prophet Mohammad’s image should not be rendered. But until a few years back such images were available in Iran and Turkey’s back streets. Some images are with museums in Europe but have been removed from display for fear of reaction. Drawing the human form was also an issue in Muslim societies but it changed over the course of history.

Why has Islamophobia erupted at this point in time? The main reason is that a transnational Islam has emerged in reaction to economic and cultural globalisation and aggressive US policies in the Middle East. Though in a minority, unfortunately these Islamic movements have stolen the leadership from moderate Muslims. What started as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is now an international movement with recruits from all Muslim countries. They do not represent the majority of people, something which was proved in the recent elections in Pakistan.

Muslims should not cry for muzzling dissent. Attacks on tasteless cartoonists will be futile. They should argue their case with confidence if they think they have a case. They should not indulge in theological diatribes. They should just project themselves as modern Muslims who are normal beings and believe in love and tolerance among people of different faiths. The OIC would be better off if it spent a couple of billion dollars on promoting Muslim societies as moderate, tolerant and modern. They should erase the image of Muslims as rejectionists as presented by the extremists. A well-thought-out PR strategy is needed with a positive programme.

The OIC summit failed to pay attention to a more burning issue — that of Muslims killing Muslims. So far the OIC has not made any serious effort to mediate between Hamas and the PLO, between warring Shias and Sunnis in Iraq, between the Taliban and the Karzai government in Afghanistan, and between warring Muslim Darfur factions. If OIC leaders really want to make their talking forum effective they should raise a peace force and offer to replace the American and Nato forces in Muslim countries. This will change the antagonistic relationship with the West.

It’s time for action, not the mere passing of resolutions. It’s time to stop sulking and reacting, and become proactive and positive.

The writer is a freelance journalist.

ayazbabar@gmail.com