|
| May 18, 2008 | Sunday | Jamadi-ul-Awwal 12, 1429 |
Another flour crisis?
A rare moment of joy
OTHER VOICES - Indian Press
Nehru: an out of fashion icon
Whither democratic norms?
JAWAHARLAL Nehru’s record of remaining elected prime minister for 17 consecutive years is yet to be matched by any other leader of South Asia. As prime minister and leader of the Congress party, Nehru left his indelible mark on India’s political system and economic and foreign policies.
IN the last 60 years, we have tried to run the affairs of the country through the power that flows from the barrel of the gun as well as the one that flows from the ballot box. In both cases, we have failed miserably as the missing link has been the rule of law.
SLOWED down by Pakistan’s domestic crisis the normalisation process with India has nevertheless continued and unless the Indians spring a surprise, there is nothing to suggest that Jaipur is going to cast a shadow on the talks beginning in Islamabad this week. Not only has no Indian government official blamed Islamabad or any Pakistan-based organisations so far for the Jaipur tragedy, Indian security authorities suspect the involvement of some militant outfits based in Bangladesh. While the blame going in the direction of Dhaka is nothing to be pleased about, this should, however, serve to reassure us that the first meeting between Pakistan’s new foreign minister and his Indian counterpart will not be overshadowed by the tragedy at Jaipur. One can expect the two sides to meet in a climate of cordiality and show a common determination to forge ahead with the normalisation process. In fact, the Indian side should welcome Shah Mahmood Qureshi’s statement that the Islamabad meeting will focus on adopting ‘effective counter-terrorism’ measures to strengthen their bilateral cooperation in this field. Also, the firing across the Line of Control, for which New Delhi initially blamed Islamabad, has not been allowed by the two sides to vitiate the atmosphere. Even though Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called the alleged attack from the Pakistani side ‘worrisome’ he said the issue had been taken up by the two directors general of military operations.
Meanwhile, the Iran gas pipeline has finally become a trilateral affair after India announced its decision last month to join it. No wonder the Pakistan Foreign Office spokesman at his weekly press briefing should have expressed optimism about the outcome of Wednesday’s talks. Besides Kashmir, the eight-point agenda includes terrorism, peace and security, new confidence-building measures, the Sir Creek boundary dispute, Wullar barrage, drug trafficking, and economic and cultural cooperation. The Indian side is reportedly coming with some new proposals visualising an increase in the frequency of the existing bus services and opening new ones.
While progress has been consistent since the two sides agreed on a ‘composite dialogue’ in February 2004, much more remains to be done. The visa regimes remain to be liberalised, and consulates at Karachi and Mumbai have still not been set up. This is a source of hardship for visa seekers on both sides. India also needs to address the human rights issue in the Valley and lift the ban on Pakistani TV channels in occupied Kashmir — a point raised recently by the Paris-based NGO Reporters Without Borders. What India should not fail to grasp is the opportunity offered by the assumption of power by a democratic government in Islamabad. An improvement in the human rights condition in the Valley will enable the people of Kashmir to get the benefit of the ongoing normalisation process and help find a solution acceptable to all three sides.
IT is unfortunate that our governments — federal and provincial both — need to be rapped on their knuckles before they move to correct wrong policies. Take the case of the Punjab government’s decision to ease controls on inter-district wheat movement to facilitate the purchase of grain by flour millers. The policy change was effected only after millers arbitrarily raised prices by Rs25 per 20kg bag and threatened an indefinite shutdown. The millers had a point, for once, that strict administrative controls on movement of the staple had provided an opportunity to big producers and traders to hold back their stocks and raise rates to above Rs700 per 40kg against the official procurement price of Rs625. Controls on intra-provincial movement were imposed to facilitate the provincial food department’s procurement drive. But as things invariably turn out, the official procurement was itself hit hard due to a substantial slowdown in wheat arrival in the market as traders, expecting to obtain higher prices from millers facing stock shortages, held back supplies.
The department has so far procured only two million tons of grain since the start of the harvest over a month ago. Many attribute the inability of the food authorities to meet the procurement target of 4.3 million tons — including one million for the NWFP and 0.3 million for Balochistan — to the slowdown in the arrival of fresh stocks. Things are already turning worse in Balochistan where wheat flour is not available even for Rs30 per kg. This is happening at a time when the country is still harvesting the new crop. The people of that province need an immediate boost in grain supplies to cope with the shortages and nip the spectre of yet another flour crisis. If the situation in Balochistan is not controlled right away, chances are the crisis will spill over into other parts of the country as hoarders attempt to make profits from artificial shortages. The slowdown in wheat arrivals in Punjab is nothing but an early warning of worse things to come unless action is taken.
Administrative controls over markets seldom work if these are not accompanied by measures to boost supplies. An early shipment of imported wheat — the federal government plans to import 2.5 million tons — reaching the country would boost supplies and curb speculatory pressures that have the potential to cause another food crisis a la last winter.
IN these trying times, it was indeed heartening to see Pakistan’s ambassador to Kabul, Tariq Azizuddin, reunited with his family on Saturday after three months in captivity. He had been kidnapped from Khyber Agency in February as he headed back to his post in Kabul. His beaming and charming wife had clearly been counting the days since his disappearance as she didn’t need to pause even for a moment before telling a DawnNews reporter she was seeing her husband after 97 days. Although Interior Adviser Rehman Malik, badly needing something positive after his hitherto unexplained by-elections fiasco, made sure the ambassador returned home to a media circus, such was the joy of the occasion that the former could be forgiven for claiming credit. As the dust settles over the issue, and the veracity of Mr Malik’s assertion is ascertained that no deal was made or prisoners released in exchange for Mr Azizuddin, other issues need to be addressed.
The abduction episode underlined how the media has still a long way to go before it can claim to be mature and responsible. First there was an unfounded press report on how the family was reacting — it claimed close relatives were unaffected and happy. The report was nonsensical and exposed a lack of professionalism and, worse still, compassion. Then, because the government rightly made all the moves to secure his release away from the prying eyes of the media to ensure the abducted envoy’s safety, it came in for flak for perceived inaction. But this debate can continue at another time. For now let’s join in the joy of the Azizuddin family and salute their courage and stoicism. Let’s also spare a thought for other innocent victims of extremism whose ordeal is not in the public domain and who suffer in silence.
Challenges from Jaipur
The Hindu
TUESDAY’S heartrending tragedy in Jaipur … makes this much clear: India’s struggle against terrorism will be long and bloody. … [I]t is likely that the attacks were carried out by one of the dozens of Islamist cells that emerged out of the Students Islamic Movement of India. Made up of cadre trained and funded by the Lashkar-i-Taiba and Harkat ul-Jihad-i-Islami, these cells have been responsible for hundreds of killings since 1993…
…India’s policy establishment must address the challenges the bombings pose to its counter-terrorism strategy. Ever since 2001-2002, New Delhi counted on President Pervez Musharraf to rein in jihadist groups…. [T]here is little doubt that at least some pressure was brought to bear on the jihadists. Now the new order in Pakistan has moved to heal the ruptured relationship between its army and its long-standing Islamist allies. Pakistan has released the Jaish-i-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar … lifted restraints on the Lashkar, moved towards cementing a ceasefire with Taliban elements…. In consequence, jihadist groups are likely to have more freedom … to operate against India. — (May 15).
Strong-arm tactics
The Sangai Express
THE repeated threats issued to the editor and staff of Naharolgi Thoudang … reflect[s] the trend that has become synonymous with the Manipur of today. Threats, intimidations, diktats, boycott … have become the calling card for quite a large number of people, organisations, student bodies, state agencies….
Such a culture … can flourish only when the government of the day is seen to have abdicated its duty of providing security to the people. On the other hand, some unscrupulous elements within the state security agencies have taken advantage of the situation to pursue their own agenda, with the arms issued to them by the government.…
The threat to Naharolgi Thoudang may be seen in this light. Manipur today is a fertile ground for anti-social elements to flourish as well as for state agencies to exploit the situation…. In fact the people of Manipur have been browbeaten into submission for such a long time, that independent thinking, healthy debates or discussions … have become something of a mirage…. To combat this social menace, the people need to raise their voice and say enough is enough. — (May 14)
He died while serving as India’s prime minister 44 years ago on May 28. But Nehru is politically a little out of fashion these days in India.
The deaths of M.K. Gandhi and M.A. Jinnah within 13 months of Partition contributed, to some degree, to the persistence of their charisma without being subjected to the pressures and critical scrutiny that came with governing newly minted countries in 1947.
Nehru’s 17 years of prime ministership did not offer him that privilege.
In the popular imagination of Pakistanis, Nehru is a guileful person. A classic example of this is Akbar S. Ahmed’s movie ‘Jinnah’ in which Nehru is mostly shown in the bedroom with Lady Mountbatten realising his political wishes through the means of an extra-marital affair. Was that the real Nehru? What was his role in shaping India’s ‘tryst with destiny’? Why is Nehru out of fashion in India today?
“I have become a queer mixture of the East and the West, out of place everywhere, at home nowhere. I am a stranger and alien in the West. I cannot be of it. But in my own country also, sometimes, I have an exile’s feeling.” That is how Nehru at one stage described himself.
This blend made him, simultaneously, a champion of modernisation in India and a loyal disciple of Mohandas Gandhi whose views on matters of economy he found quite dated.
On the home front, Nehru’s family life suffered because of his involvement in the nationalist movement which inevitably meant little time for his household.
Nehru, at one level, was the epitome of high culture of the northern Indian plains which partly explains his close friendship with individuals like Maulana Azad and Rafi Ahmed Kidwai. Both were members of his cabinet once India became independent and held important portfolios like education and communications.
Nehru managed to balance ‘contending interests within the broad coalition of ruling forces’ as he was ‘not identified with any specific group yet had the charismatic power to reach the people directly’.
He led the Congress party to three electoral victories following independence. The Congress knew that Nehru was their prime vote-getter.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, summarising Nehru’s political qualities, wrote: “Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s charismatic personality swayed the people of India. He exercised compulsive power over the crowds. People flocked to hear him. Nehru was like opium to them; he drugged them into total submission. He enchanted them and from their adoration he drew his strength. At his best, he could make them believe anything.” It was Nehru who championed the idea of secularism in a deeply religious society.
His great gamble of putting India on the road of electoral and constitutional democracy has worked reasonably well for the country. Interestingly, the architect of parliamentary democracy in India mainly consulted three unelected individuals when it came to devising policy frameworks and allowed them to set up institutions in the areas of India’s economic, foreign and atomic policies.
P. Mahalanobis, a Bengali trained as a physicist and statistician, played a key role in the planning commission which drafted five-year plans to serve as a guiding framework for the Indian economy. The economic model aimed at creating an industrial base in India with a vibrant public sector and growth with an element of equity.
It was also during Nehru’s early years that absentee landlordism was eliminated with varying degrees of success in different parts of the country. Changes in landownership patterns laid the foundation for the creation of a class of rich farmers termed bullock-capitalists.
Krishna Menon, a south Indian who had lived mostly in England, was Nehru’s point man when it came to India’s foreign and defence policies. The India of the 1950s under Nehru’s personal guidance played a prominent role in the creation of what came to be known as the Non-Aligned Movement. Homi Bhabha, a Parsi from Mumbai, was the man who the prime minister entrusted with the task of creating India’s atomic infrastructure.
Many of the pledges made in the ‘tryst with destiny’ speech delivered on the eve of Indian independence proved far more difficult to meet with the means employed by Nehru.
The limits of his policies dawned both in the domestic and international arena. Linguistic nationalism was on the rise, domestically forcing Nehru to redraw the political map of much of India.
Incidentally, when Nehru’s popular government was striking compromises with regional political forces, Pakistan’s central government chose to deny regional differences by slapping One Unit on the country. The Congress party now faced credible opposition in a number of provinces of which the victory of the communists in Kerala in 1957 was an example. Nehru’s credentials were tarnished when he ordered the dismissal of the duly elected provincial government in 1959.
In the field of foreign affairs, a volley of errors led to India’s ignominious defeat at the hands of the Chinese in 1962. Nehru never recovered from this defeat. He became more withdrawn from public life. He lacked the sprightly energy that was his hallmark.
Nehru who had cast aspersions on Pakistani leaders in the mid-1950s for leaning on the US militarily was now requesting US military assistance himself. ‘The hero had lost his magic touch; he was old, tired, disillusioned, embittered, no longer in control of things’.
Why is Nehru out of fashion in India today? His ideas about economic, foreign, atomic and democratic set-ups are out of sync with the dominant discourse of present-day India. In foreign policy, it is in closer alignment with the US and does not maintain the equidistance Nehru sought. The economic model of Manmohan Singh subscribes to the neo-liberal belief of leaving most things at the mercy of the market and is a far cry from the activist role of the state envisaged by Nehru to create a somewhat level playing field for the different social castes and classes of India.
Lastly, the new India is a champion of nuclear weapons whereas Nehru considered such weapons as evil.
In Pakistan, Nehru does not cut a sympathetic figure mainly because he is considered responsible for ensuring the questionable accession of Kashmir to India in 1947 and then not fulfilling his historic pledge to hold a plebiscite to solicit the views of the Kashmiris in determining the future of their region. Secondly, for Pakistanis the man who made India stand on moral high grounds on various issues of global politics was not averse to relying on realpolitik tactics when it came to relations with India’s neighbours.
The writer teaches at the School of International Studies, Simon Fraser University, Canada.
hnizamani@hotmail.com
If war is too serious a business to be left to the generals, running the country cannot at all be left to the politicians alone. As politicians have yet another opportunity to govern the country, it is about time they get certain facts straight about democracy.
This is all the more necessary given the statements emanating from the likes of Mr Asif Ali Zardari on the lawyers’ movement and the retaining of Malik Qayyum as attorney general which we will address later. Elections that elevate politicians to the status of MPAs and MNAs, and consequently to public offices, are just one component of the democratic process. The latter is a continuous process and runs through the tenure of parliament and beyond. To this democratic process belong not only politicians and political parties but also lawyers, students, teachers, traders, doctors, disabled people (yes, of course), journalists and all those associations, organisations and bodies through which they are represented.
The function of political parties is to make an aggregate of the total demands raised in society and have them fulfilled when in power. The function of the media and other civil society organisations is to ensure the rule of law by providing checks and balances to the power wielded by the politicians. Can politicians be the harbingers of that dawn where the rule of law would hold sway in the country?
Never in our entire history had we been so close to achieving the elusive dream of establishing the rule of law in the country as when Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry said ‘no’ and triggered the lawyers’ movement. For the first time there was demand for the rule of law from outside the power quarters. For it to be potent and effective, the demand had to come from a well-organised and democratic interest group and it did.
The lawyers’ movement that took the power quarters by storm was able to sustain itself over a longer period because their bar councils are democratic and hold elections regularly.
As pointed out earlier, political parties make an aggregate of the total number of demands in society and take up only those which reflect their manifestoes or suit their needs. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable as to why some of the political parties took up the cause of the lawyers’ movement and others were ambivalent in their stand on this issue.
However, what is not understandable is the way political parties that took, at best, an ambivalent stand on the issue of restoring the deposed judges are now trying to monopolise the whole democratic process.
This tendency stems from the limited understanding of democracy which pre-supposes election results as the final outcome of the democratic process. Political leaders that preclude the role of interest groups in the democratic process need to have themselves enrolled in a crash course on participatory democracy. Basking in glory which has its roots in power that comes by winning the elections, they call into question the legitimacy of the lawyers’ demand by pointing out that they called for the boycott of polls.
Political parties participated in these elections not because of what happens when they take part in elections that are likely to be rigged but because of what happens when they do not take part in elections at all — the case in point being the 1985 general elections and the PPP’s decision not to take part in them.
The lawyers were perfectly justified in assuming that their interests would not be protected if the elections were rigged. Furthermore, Mr Farooq Naek, minister for law, justice and human rights, seems totally oblivious to the norms of participatory democracy when he says that Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari would take the final decision on the draft resolution and that no one could ‘dictate’ to them. It is not a question of dictation. As an interest group, the lawyers’ movement has every right to ensure that its struggle is not sacrificed at the altar of political convenience.
Similarly, lawyers elected Mr Qayyum as their president when the majority of them thought he was better suited to serve their interests as lawyers. He was appointed attorney general by those who thought he could serve their interests best and political leaders have allowed him to continue holding his post as their interests coincide with those who appointed him in the first place. Why blame the lawyers when it is all about the convergence of interests?
We are in the process of graduating from a ‘controlled’ democracy to a real one. Real democracy is participatory in nature and politicians will have to learn to co-exist with pressure/interest groups. No matter what spin legal eagles and politicians may give to the issue of restoration of the deposed judges, the law is all about common sense that found majestic manifestation on Feb 18.
The media, the lawyers’ movement and other civil society organisations, as interest groups of a participatory democracy, will continue their struggle to ensure the rule of law in the intervening period between Feb 18 and the next general elections.
The writer is a rights activist based in Islamabad.
zahid@cpdi-pakistan.org
