April 6, 2003

While the world continues to protest against US policies, the moderate forces in Pakistan have been, at best, in a low key. Systematic depoliticization seems to have worked against pluralistic values

AGAINST the backdrop of American imperial designs in the Middle East and its aggression against Iraq with the most sophisticated technology of mass destruction, the peace demonstrations across the world have come as a ray of hope. Never before in history was a war protested against before its actual beginning in the manner in which it was opposed on February 15, when more than thirty million people across the globe came out on the streets to give their verdict against the impending war. These demonstrations are still continuing and have, in fact, spread to other regions, especially after the Shock and Awe - blitz of the US.

By attracting people of different cultural backgrounds, religions, colour, and race, these demonstrations have destroyed the prophecies of the ‘clash of civilizations’. Moreover, from beneath the globalization of multinational corporations, WTO, and the open market across the globe has emerged a grassroot globalization. What has been demonstrated by this phenomenon is the fact that the people of the world share concerns against destruction and aspire for peace and justice.

However, in this drawing of lines between the forces of aggression and violence on the one hand, and those of justice and peace on the other, one finds to one’s dismay that we in Pakistan could not register a popular response of the size we could.

Except for the Mutahidda Majlis-e-Amal’s demonstrations which were held in its particular religio-cultural atmosphere, the liberal and moderate elements’ response against American aggression against international law and all norms of morality and decency, has been limited, mute and low-key even as compared to the past Pakistani standards.

In Karachi, as many as thirty to forty civil society organizations could not bring more than four to five thousand people on February 28. The question is, why our moderate, liberal and progressive organizations and thousands of NGOs working in the country could not build a peace movement in the last so many years, even though there have been conflicts around the world and nearer home in Afghanistan and in the Indo-Pak subcontinent.

A number of facts need to be addressed. What does one mean by civil society and what does it stand for in Pakistan? Why in the past, despite official repression, there was much stronger association among the people with international causes. What has made our civil society ineffective in recent years in reaching out to the people?

A civil society comprises organizations and bodies — political parties, labour unions, educational institutions, bodies of students and teachers, professional groups, social welfare organizations, NGOs, and others that act as a countervailing force to the state.

The civil society opposes and checks the state’s actions of excesses and wrongs, and compensates for them where needed. The civil society organisations choose to work in one or the other area, but they do not segregate the various segments of society. They, rather, uphold the principle of the equality of citizenship. This fact is important to highlight as this informs us why one is compelled to exclude the religio-political organization from the ambit of the civil society while discussing it in the context of Pakistan.

However, given the weaknesses of our civil society — a theme which will be elaborated later — the initiative in many areas which should essentially be its domain has gone in the hands of religious parties that address the given issues in their religio-cultural framework and in accordance with their particular world-view. The anti-American protests by the MMA at the time of American aggression in Afghanistan and now its ‘million marches’ against the backdrop of the Anglo-American assault on Iraq, is a case in point.

The state of general apathy that one finds today is in dire contrast with our popular responses to similar situations in the past. During the 1956 Suez canal crisis, ‘Suez Days’ were observed all over Pakistan with great fervour. During the 1967 Arab-Israel war, protests throughout the country attracted people from all walks of life. But those were very different days. Society was full of vigour, the youth had ideals, hope was intact, and political parties were alive to aspirations. Today, society stands depoliticized and lifeless.

Politicization is a multi-dimensional process geared at creating awareness in people about the impediments in the way of their political, cultural and socio-economic advancement and the means through which they can overcome them. The key to this process is the idea of awareness — implying a conscious engagement with the available structure of rights and obligations with a view to improving them.

Depoliticization, on the other hand, disengages people from the whole ambit of rights and obligations, and, instead, makes them subservient to the dictates of the state. Citizens thus become subjects, gradually losing their self-esteem and self-confidence.

Then comes a stage where people stop making sense. Hamaray muzaheron se kiya jang ruk jaye gee? (Will our demonstrations stop this war?) ... Kuch karna hay to Iraq jao, yahan muzahiray karnay say kiya fayeda (Go to Iraq if you want to do something. What’s the point of holding processions here). These and other such comments that one hears these days represent either the hypocrisy of those who do not want to take a position or are reflective of the loss of self-confidence. This is what depoliticization has done to our society.

It was during the 1980s and 1990s that the Pakistani society gradually but systematically was depoliticized. General Zia’s martial law made the longest interruption in the political process. With the liquidation of the constitution and institutions, discouragement of political parties and neutralization of a significant section of the political leadership through inducements, the political thrust of society was minimised.

Later, when political governments were installed under severe and harsh conditions, they could not regenerate political vigour in society. Moreover, they, too, disappointed the electorate by compromising on the principles they proclaimed, and by indulging in petty politics and divisive activities.

A striking feature of depoliticization has been that politics has been made a derogatory term — like abuse. It denotes corruption, incompetence and evil. The students’ involvement in politics is discouraged; in fact they are asked to submit affidavits at the time of admission in colleges and universities, affirming that they would not take part in politics.

Taken on the pretext of recurrent violence on the campuses in Karachi, Lahore and elsewhere in the ‘80s and ‘90s, the prohibition of politics and banning of the students’ unions have gone with stiff security measures at educational institutions. This only shifted the venues of violence to other places. The addressing of the causes of violence and searching for their solution was never given sustained attention.

The trade union movement in Pakistan had begun to lose its strength right from the 1970s. Today, it is almost extinct. There are exceptional cases of individual organizations that take national and international causes seriously.

The NGO sector constitutes an important segment of the civil society. The NGOs could create awareness about war and peace. However, the NGO sector is beset with problems of its own. There are more than thirty thousand NGOs in the country, but a large number of them are non-functional. The NGOs which are functioning effectively, are confined to their respective areas of interest, and their objectives and acts generally do not converge to develop into a wider movement. Their efforts, thus, are limited to the chasing of targets set by the donor agencies.

A few of the NGOs have certainly been able to create linkages between themselves, and have tried to coordinate their acts. Peace has been a concern of this small group of NGOs, but it will take time for them to make a noticeable impact on the public.

The press and intelligentsia can play a very valuable role in the cultivation of anti-war sentiment. However, a large part of our print-media — particularly the Urdu press — has for the most part encouraged jingoism and promoted war hysteria either in the context of Afghanistan of 1970s and ‘80s, or in the background of continued tension between India and Pakistan. In sections of the Urdu press, peace is projected as a weakness and an unattainable goal. Today, this press may condemn American aggression, but it has not been able to persuade people to publicize their protest against this war from platforms of peace.

In the past, the intelligentsia had been swift in responding to international causes and crises. The Progressive Writers movement did a lot in projecting a pro-people worldview in our society. The fiction and poetry written under its influence transcended geographical boundaries and treated mankind as a single unit. The example of Faiz’s poetry, which is full of references to human struggle in different parts of the world and his popular poems like Irani Tulaba Kay Naam, Aajao Africa, Sarey Wadi-e-Seena and Aik Naghma Karbala-e-Bairoot Kay Liyay, speak volumes about a worldview transcending the boundaries of national territories and religions, and integrate mankind in a liberating struggle.

One may also recall what Habib Jalib wrote while denouncing the American imperial designs in his day and age. Today, we do not find such strong voices of protest among us. Unfortunately, one also does not even hear today the echo of what was written in the past. The silence is deafening.

The recurrent breakdown of the political system disoriented our political parties with the result that they lost their contact with the people. These parties now go to people only on the occasion of elections. Their poor performance in office has further alienated them from the electorate.

Over the years, they got the opportunity to share power with the establishment without enjoying autonomy of action, with the result that today they are shy of taking independent stances on foreign policy issues.

It seems that the leadership of the PPP — expecting to replace the incumbent government someday — does not want to take an anti-American position for apparently in its view the road to Islamabad goes through Washington. It is in dire contrast with the politics of its founder, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who, during his career, took courageous positions on a number of occasions, such as the Vietnam war and the 1973 Arab-Israel war.

The ANP’s Rehber Khan Wali Khan, who has been a towering nationalist leader, is too old and, perhaps, ill. With some of their leaders subsumed in the ‘high politics’ of the establishment through the channels of patronage, and the others fighting against each other, the nationalist parties of the Pukhtuns, Baloch and Sindhis are by and large lying low, if they have not become redundant.

The Muslim League (N) has been cut to size through sponsored defections in the form of PML(Q). The Muttahida Quami Movement with its effective power base in urban Sindh is an ally of the ruling party at the Centre, and is part of the government in Sindh. Its response to the US-Iraq war is tuned to the official policy.

So there stands our civil society. It will take time and a lot of sincere efforts before our enlightened individuals and organizations succeed in creating a conscientious society responsive to the threats to world peace. Before that, much blood would have flown in the river Tigris.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)