Why secularism is shrinking

I DO not want to belittle the Bharatiya Janata Party victory in the Karnataka state election which has given it a foothold in the south for the first time since independence. My contention is that every such success lessens the space for secularism in India.

When the chips are down, the BJP represents Hindutva and all that goes with it. The Congress may be opportunist in outlook, dynastic in attitude and authoritarian in approach, but its ethos is secular. It represents pluralism which was also the characteristic of the freedom struggle.

The BJP has over the past few years hewn a path which circumvents the Muslim community. The party did not field a single Muslim candidate in Karnataka, Gujarat or a couple of other states where it fought elections in the last one and a half years. This seems to be the party’s new policy. Muslims constitute roughly 15 per cent of the population in the country. Still, the BJP has preferred to ignore them. They do not fit into the Indian scheme the party has in view.

I am not suggesting that the BJP does not have Muslims as members. A couple of them are even office-bearers in its central organisational set-up. Yet, the image of the BJP is that of a party which is anything but secular. Its constant, close links with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh makes the BJP still more suspect because the Sangh dictum is: Hindi-Hindu-Hindustan.

This is not a healthy development in a society which is constitutionally pluralistic and vehemently opposed to the two-nation theory.

No doubt, the Congress is the most to blame because communal forces over the years have thrived at its expense. The party leaders, if they have the courage to speak out, must analyse why the Congress has lost its secular credentials. When a leader of the Nationalist Congress Party, a Congress ally, proposes a joint government with the BJP at the centre and when RSS chief Sudarshan endorses the suggestion, the Congress must wake up to the general perception that it is not very different from the BJP.

The larger question which the country must face is why secularism is shrinking in the country. That the obsession of caste considerations is driving out community interest is largely true. Elections are fought primarily on the basis of caste. But why has the Congress never projected class, an economic conglomeration, to defeat caste? It appears as if the party’s own commitment to socialism and pluralism has eroded. In a way, this is natural in a party where the decision-making process is confined to a few and where the upper middle-class frames policy.

What about the other non-BJP parties? The Congress is not the country. All secular forces, big or small, have to think about how to refurbish the value of pluralism which is losing its appeal. The getting together of pluralistic parties is worthwhile in political terms so that secular votes don’t split. However, the challenge is a moral one. A nation traversing the path of constructing a secular polity is being pushed in a direction which is divisive, destructive and communal. It is not the structure that faces the danger. It is the very existence of the polity which has come to have a question mark against it.

India is proud of its democracy. The system is based on the participation of all, equally and unequivocally. There is no majoritism or minoritism. Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Parsis are limbs which provide nourishment to the body politic. How and for how long can it stay healthy if some limbs are discarded or considered inferior for use?

Sometimes I wonder whether Hindutva is creeping in slowly and relentlessly. That may well have been the reason why the BJP did not communalise the election campaign in Karnataka and had no hesitation in getting Narendra Modi (of the Gujarat carnage fame) to electioneer for more than a week. The party had kept him away in some earlier elections. Modi represents the anti-thesis of pluralism.

Muslim extremists only aggravate the situation because they strengthen the BJP and its type of thinking when they indulge in bomb blasts or help outsiders do so and provide them with shelter. An SMS sent on mobile telephones after the blasts at Jaipur was: ‘Muslims are not terrorists but terrorists are Muslims’. This went to the houses of the Hindu middle-class.

Some Muslims organisations are doing a commendable job holding public meetings and seminars to denounce terrorism. But extolling the virtues of Islam from the same platform does not mix well. They are confusing the public. Terrorism per se is reprehensible. On the other hand, the harassment of Muslim youth in the name of fighting terrorism is instilling fear and a sense of insecurity into the community. A Muslim lawyer had a tough time at Faizabad court in UP the other day when he appeared for terrorist suspects. The bar had asked all lawyers not to defend them.

Yet, the basic question that Karnataka has thrown up remains unanswered. Is the Congress saleable as an alternative in the country? It has lost six states in a row in the last 18 months. Party president Sonia Gandhi is a crowd puller. But the crowd does not seem to be getting translated into votes. Can the ruling United Progressive Alliance be projected with different constituents?

At present, the Left is part of the UPA. Understandably, the Left wants to contest on its own. What about other non-BJP parties? Some of them have joined hands with the BJP in forming governments both at the centre and in the states. A few are still members of a coalition they jointly run.

The Lok Sabha elections are only 11 months away. Some combinations are being discussed behind the scenes. Let the example of former Prime Minister Deve Gowda not be repeated. He first cheated the Congress, then the BJP and is now available to the highest bidder. This is the time for parties to show their commitment. They may have to retrieve the Congress. A country which is proud to call itself secular cannot be left at the mercy of one party which is committed more to power and less to pluralism.

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.

Building institutions

THE new government recently replaced the director-general of the country’s premier strategic think-tank, the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad (ISSI), with the intention of rebuilding the organisation.

The fact that the former director-general was given 15 minutes notice led to a great hue and cry and even to suggestions that this might have happened at the behest of the Americans. Notwithstanding the need for restructuring the institute, the method employed to oust the director-general was a bad idea for three reasons.

First, it encouraged conspiracy theorists to suggest that nothing happens in Pakistan without orders from Washington. Some opportunists had the audacity to lump this dismissal and the appointment of the director-general, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC), together. One commentator even suggested that these two instances were examples of American influence on Islamabad. The writer did not even bother to check his facts. The incoming director-general, PBC, was never a permanent employee of the Voice of America. Nor did he ever get favourable treatment for his pro-democracy views from the Voice of America management due to the strong pro-Pakistani establishment lobby inside the American organisation.

Second, the dismissal established a bad precedence which, in turn, will make any new head of the institute nervous that his/her survival was subject to the pleasure of the political bosses. This strategy is detrimental to promoting professionalism which the ISSI badly requires.

Third, it would not give the dismissed director-general an opportunity to evaluate her own work or lack of performance in not making the institute what it deserved to be: an excellent think-tank with the capacity to carry out objective analyses. In the past eight years or so, the institute had merely become a showpiece and propaganda machine that only employed youngsters without direction or research staff resembling deadwood.

The entire issue of restructuring the ISSI raises the larger question of the need to restructure public-sector research institutes. For years, Islamabad has spent many resources on maintaining a number of research institutes that have served little purpose other than to provide employment and to say what the establishment wished to hear. It is not just an issue of putting the ISSI in order but all Islamabad-based research institutes which have not produced credible research.

Research is a technical field that requires input in terms of information and theoretical knowledge. The fact of the matter is that there is hardly anyone in any of these think-tanks who is trained in research methodology. As a result, we have produced substandard research. The ISSI and its sister institute the Institute of Regional Studies have become employment exchanges for fresh graduates who are not trained in research methodology or encouraged to produce work worth looking at.

The first thing that the government must try to get rid of is the involvement of the intelligence agencies in giving clearance to researchers. An environment in which the Intelligence Bureau or the Inter-Services Intelligence has to give security clearance to researchers does not produce credible work. There have been instances in the past when clearance was withheld or withdrawn from employees for questioning the logic of the head of the institute. Of course, the reason given in such cases was that the interaction of some researchers with foreign diplomats jeopardised national security.

It is important to note that neither of the two institutes have access to classified information. Currently, the main source of input includes Pakistani and foreign newspapers, journals and books that are accessible to all — unless Pakistan’s intelligence agencies think that people outside do not read at all. Researchers would have to meet foreigners including diplomats to access information that could go into their research product.

The most important thing that these organisations need is a fair amount of independence for the research staff so that the end-result is output-based institutions and not bureaucratic ones where people have no option but to produce poor quality work. It ought to be realised that research institutes are meant to provide input for decisions and not to take decisions. So, research has to be objective and critical at the same time.

One cannot expect these think-tanks to start producing results with a change at the top. There are four suggestions which one would like to offer for restructuring these organisations. First, the think-tanks must bring established academics on board as research associates or put them on the research board. In fact, known names, irrespective of what side of the ideological divide they belong to, should be brought in to improve the credibility of the organisations. Pakistan and its leadership should develop confidence in their country and should not think that differences of opinion would jeopardise the country’s security. As it is, Pakistan can boast of very few established names in academia that have an international standing.

Second, younger researchers or permanent employees should be taught research methodology and instructed on developing expertise in specific areas rather than be rewarded for their PR skills.

Third, researchers must be given an opportunity to visit other countries to conduct fieldwork and to talk to experts. The final product should be reviewed by established academics inside or outside Pakistan. In fact, researchers must be encouraged to publish their work in refereed journals outside. This would contribute tremendously towards improving the quality of their research and writing skills.

Finally, the management of the institutes and that of research should be separated. Such separation will ensure that the research staff is treated with greater respect than the managerial staff and not expected to run errands for the heads of organisations as is the culture in the think-tanks under discussion. Moreover, like in all good international think-tanks, a research council should be formed to discuss new ideas and events every week with emphasis on on-going research.

Needless to say, Pakistan badly needs good research institutes that are not simply used as government mouthpieces. The diplomatic corps and political establishment are large enough to undertake this task. These are organisations which were established to conduct analyses that could later be factored into decision-making.

Currently, Pakistan lacks the capacity to explain itself to the world because it has a poor research base. This is not just about the world being deliberately unkind to Pakistan but the absence of institutional mechanisms through which the country and the government could prove that the ability to think and introspect is very much there. Restructuring these research institutes would be a small but much-needed move in this direction.

The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.

ayesha.ibd@gmail.com

The coming economic tsunami

PAKISTAN’S economic outlook for the next year or two is serious even if it manages to get the planned three billion dollars in external financial assistance in the next few months.

Its currency has lost 10 per cent against the US dollar since the beginning of the year, trade deficit has jumped by 50 per cent this year, Standard & Poor’s has cut its rating by a single notch to a B with a negative outlook on May 15, and its Euro bonds are being quoted at a spread of 500-600 basis points to the US treasuries compared to an average spread of 261 points for emerging markets bonds.

It is not unlikely that key macro indicators will deteriorate as follows:

— The GDP growth may drop sharply to three per cent or less from 6.6 per cent in 2007. This would imply a drop in the real per capita income of around 80 per cent of Pakistanis due to an approximate population growth rate of 2.4 per cent and skewed income distribution.

— The current account deficit could exceed 10 per cent of the GDP for the current fiscal year ending June 30, 2008.

— The rupee could depreciate to 75 per dollar with a fair chance of overshooting it in the interim if the trade gap continues to widen and capital flight accelerates.

— Inflation could accelerate to 25 per cent sparking widespread social unrest and pushing more people below the poverty line.

— The stock market could fall to the 11,000 level i.e. by another 15 per cent.

— The budget deficit could cross eight per cent of the GDP.

— Foreign exchange reserves may drop to under two months of import cover.

Why is Pakistan especially vulnerable?

Based on the latest available key economic indicators of the 25 largest developing countries (excluding the Middle Eastern oil producers) in Asia, Latin America and Africa, Pakistan has had the worst fiscal and current account deficit level (measured as a percentage of GDP), the second highest inflation rate and the second worst performing currency when measured in terms of its depreciation against the US dollar since the beginning of the year. Oil prices are not the only reason for Pakistan’s current economic woes. The rapid deterioration of its macro economic indicators has exposed its fragility and the myth of its ‘economic progress’.

Among all major developing countries, Pakistan’s economy is the weakest and most vulnerable to rising oil prices and international financial crisis. Fourteen of the 25 largest emerging market economy countries do not have a deficit at all because their exports and other earnings are more than their imports; 10 countries have an inflation rate of six per cent or less and only four countries, Venezuela, Russia, Pakistan and South Africa, have double-digit inflation. Overall, Pakistan has one of the worst levels of external deficit and inflation at 8.5 per cent of the GDP and 17 per cent respectively.

Political leaders have been devoting most of their time and energy to the judges’ issue. It would serve the country better if the ruling PPP can move quickly to resolve the judiciary issue because if it does not, it may not have the political strength to deal with an economic tsunami that is waiting to happen and could be the biggest reason why the government may not complete its term. The Pakistani establishment knows this and is watching gleefully as the coalition falls apart amid a growing trust deficit between the PPP and Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N.

So far, Mr Asif Ali Zardari has ruled out any possibility of impeaching President Pervez Musharraf, although he said that he did not recognise him as a constitutional president. “I spent five years in his prison … but can we afford it? … can our economy afford it?” he asked an interviewer recently. Is that the only reason or is it because the United States sees him as its man who can deliver on the war on terror?

But Musharraf is also the biggest destabilising factor for the PPP government as well as for the market and investors. Mr Zardari’s desire to maintain a good working relationship with the army and the United States is understandable but Musharraf may be past his expiry date to perform that function as the Bush presidency nears the end of its term. The initiative has slipped out of the PPP’s hands.

If the party does not seize it now it may get trapped in a 1988-like situation when Benazir Bhutto became Pakistan’s prime minister with no real powers and had little control over the biggest province Punjab but was blamed for all its problems. One way out of this impasse may be to convene a joint sitting of the parliament and move a resolution asking President Musharraf to resign. It will be hard for Musharraf to ignore such a public call by elected representatives.

If the economy continues its present slide, even the US may not be able to bail Pakistan out. Its own once mighty financial giants are being rescued by Chinese and Arab investors. Pakistan’s last resort would be the IMF with its usual conditionalities and the inevitable pain they would cause. For Pakistan, the most sensible course would be to put its house in order now, introduce fiscal reforms, mobilise domestic savings, and have special schemes to attract capital from overseas Pakistanis. But this will require tremendous political will backed by broad national consensus.

Pakistan may need as much as $10bn a year in economic aid if oil prices stay at the level of $125 a barrel or may require more if they move to the $150-$200 range which is not unlikely. The Financial Times commented in an editorial this month: “For rich countries, the $125 oil price will be a noticeable drag on economic growth; for poor countries, when combined with higher food prices, it will mean more poverty. Oil supply should grow in response but if it does not, $200 oil is just about conceivable. It would cause serious economic disruption, international tensions and currency crises for some poor nations.”

The unpleasant truth is that Pakistan is among the most vulnerable developing poor nations.

The writer is the author of The Gathering Storm. Pakistan: Political Economy of a Security State and a former emerging markets investments head of Citigroup.

yousufnazar@yahoo.com

A tale of two countries

“IT was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way....” Charles Dickens in his literary masterpiece may well have written this opening to describe the disparity in our country, instead of the inequality which led up to the French Revolution.

Six decades have passed since two nations came into being, created along religious lines, under the watchful eye of the then masters of the world. Pakistan and Israel have both celebrated their 60th birthdays — Pakistan last year and Israel this month.

Both nations had vowed to be shining examples of the values professed by their respective religions — they were to provide aspirations for others to follow. The creation of the states was followed by massive immigration and emigration along religious lines. Both nations have fought wars with their neighbours, fighting for their existence. Both are filled with politicians who are ex-military, and the efforts of the liberals are met with an uproar from the religious right. Both strategic allies of America seem to be in a constant state of flux, dominated by a political landscape rife with backdoor deals, rumours and innuendo. Both have the uncanny ability to bank on their geopolitical importance.

Both are nuclear states — although Israel is an undeclared one — insisting on needing the deterrent for their existence. There is, however, a stark difference — while Pakistan occupies the high moral ground by supporting the liberation of Kashmir, Israel is busy turning large chunks of Palestine into a large-scale Guantanamo for the Palestinians.

The similarities continue. Corrupt politicians within the upper echelons being investigated seems to be the rule, not the exception. The intelligence services always seem to be the target of allegations relating to sinister plots being hatched; of course, they always deny them. The minorities in Israel and Pakistan routinely complain of their respective courts not providing justice. Lawyers complain of a system characterised by red tape, and citizens complain about the irregular appointments of justices.

As we look further some differences also emerge. Like most nations, Israel boasts an independent judiciary, with the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches. It has secular and religious courts. The religious courts are based on rabbinical law for Jews, and Sharia and ecclesiastic courts for Muslims and Christians. A judicial panel chose Dorit Beinisch as president of the Israeli supreme court; Justice Bhagwandas took over temporarily from Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry in spite of his religion.

Attorney-General Menachem Mazuz led an investigation and forced Israeli President Moshe Katsav from office roughly at the same time the president of Pakistan shook up the judiciary by suspending the chief justice for being independent-minded. Attorney-General Malik Qayyum lent reticent support to the president as he declared a state of emergency, suspending civil rights.

Ariel Sharon’s son, Omri Sharon, was sentenced to prison for a year when he was found guilty of violating campaign funding laws. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s office is complying with an investigation being carried out for wrongdoings. The little village of Bil’in petitioned the supreme court and got the ‘separation wall’ re-routed. Aryeh Deri, a prominent leader, and Yitzhak Mordechai, ex-defence minister and potential candidate for prime minister, served time for their convictions.

The Israeli courts may not mete out justice to the many detained Palestinians, but they are a far cry from the strain placed on the Pakistani judiciary. Their judges are not in doubt of the oath they have taken. Their lawyers do not hold the authorities in contempt for putting them in an unenviable situation. Their office of the president does not consider itself above the powers of the national police when it comes to enforcing the rule of law.

After being repelled from southern Lebanon, Israel set up the Winograd Commission to hold an inquiry into the shortcomings of the war. Even Hasan Nasrallah of Hezbollah commented that one cannot but admire a government that sets up an independent commission to criticise itself and works day and night for the release of their soldier, a reference to Gilead Shalit.

Despite a very strong military, the Israeli parliament has not been sidelined by its military. Their judiciary is independent and has not been marginalised by its politicians. Their media is independent and has not been subjugated by the police. Their foreign policy is independent and has not been dominated by America. ‘Kya hum hein woh musalman jinhen dekh ke sharmaein yehud’?