Beyond strikes
THERE was a mixed public response to the combined opposition’s strike called for Friday. No wheel-jam took place; in some cities, more commercial and shopping areas remained closed than in others. In Balochistan, however, the capital Quetta and several towns were completely shut down. Surprisingly, in the Frontier, with an MMA government in power, the opposition’s call was only partially followed, probably because the ANP — with gains in recent local elections — was not too enthusiastic a partner. Overall, there wasn’t much of a strike feel in the air, and offices, banks and educational institutions functioned almost normally. Conditions remained generally peaceful, and it goes to the credit of the opposition parties that they made no effort to enforce the strike through intimidation or violence.
This was the first street action by the MMA and the ARD working together. The dominant issue was the president’s retention of dual offices and the amendments made to the Constitution by the military-led government. High prices and the economic hardships of the people were also part of the agitation. The opposition had rushed into the strike without adequate preparation, and there is a suspicion that the ARD parties, particularly the PPP, allowed themselves to be lured into a trap by the MMA. The latter will now preen their whiskers and claim that the strikes called by them were more successful. The government has been provided with an opportunity to describe the protest as a ‘flop’ and a ‘failure’, although the opposition is bravely sticking to its guns.
Reading too little into the outcome or too much will be equally misleading. It would be a mistake for the government to believe that the result of the strike indicates that there is no serious disaffection with its policies or its performance with regard to matters of concern to the common citizens. Fear of possible violence may have persuaded many traders to keep their establishments closed, but a sense of drift in national affairs is palpable, and is a cause for anxiety for everyone. There is also uncertainty about the future. The existing constitutional mess, which loads the system in favour of the president-COAS and against parliament, impedes democratic progress. Police oppression, the misuse of the security forces for political purposes, corruption at every tier of administration, the continued domination of vested interests in the countryside, a sense that government policies are tailored to benefit the elite — these are all real problems of which the ordinary people are fully conscious even though they may not be able to translate their feelings into action. Strike or no strike, these are matters that affect everyday life and need to be addressed. Complacency is the last thing the present government needs.
The opposition too has failed to frame issues in their proper perspective that would have an impact on the public mind. Reliance on rhetoric alone or seeking to keep up a constant posture of confrontation can hardly be expected to make a dent in the government’s arrogance. A serious, well-considered negotiating position should be jointly worked out by the opposition parties and the government brought around to discuss it in a spirit of mutual accommodation. The reference point should be the 2007 elections, which can provide a chance to turn our back on the past and the present, marked by military interventions and political skullduggery of the shoddiest possible kind.
Peaceful use of N-technology
ACCORDING to a report from Islamabad, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has given Pakistan the mandate to use extensively nuclear energy for civilian purposes. More significantly, the agency has offered substantial funding for 24 research projects. Coming a few days before the US categorically rejected Pakistan’s request for a civilian nuclear cooperation accord with Islamabad, the IAEA’s move acquires greater significance. Since Pakistan’s intent is to develop nuclear energy for peaceful civilian purposes, it should welcome the IAEA’s offer. Pakistan Atomic Energy The Commission has been doing good and useful work in the health, agriculture and industrial sectors. There are 13 institutes that are providing nuclear medicine facilities to the people suffering from cancer and allied diseases. Chashma and Kanupp have proved to be clean sources of energy while three institutes are working in the field of agriculture. The role of the PAEC in various vital sectors should not be underestimated. Unfortunately it has not received the importance it deserves because the focus has been so much on the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
But what needs to be pointed out is that nuclear technology is a double-edged sword. While it can provide innumerable advantages to man, nuclear emissions/discharge can also be frightfully harmful if not handled with extreme caution. The Chernobyl disaster of 1986 is still fresh in people’s memory and the pain and suffering it caused to thousands of men, women and children continues to haunt those who survived and are still living. It is important that the nuclear waste produced in the institutions that are using nuclear capability in Pakistan is disposed of carefully and in a scientifically prescribed manner. It is surprising that the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, does not pay much attention to nuclear waste which is mentioned in passing along with other hazardous waste and given the same treatment as any other waste. It would be good if a separate cell is set up to monitor nuclear waste. Obviously, the PAEC must have provided guidelines for this and must be keeping a watchful eye on its own institutions. But a second watchdog is needed to reinforce safety.
A water supply anomaly
IT has been public knowledge for quite some time now that something is seriously wrong with Karachi’s water distribution system. While those living in large parts of the city do not get any water through their taps, there is enough water around for the same residents to be supplied through tankers, managed by the Rangers. Of course, there is a charge for this, normally Rs 500-700 per tanker. So the obvious question is if there is enough water to be supplied via tankers, why can’t the same water be made available to the residents through the piped network? In fact, the unfairness of it all is reflected in the fact that those who receive water through tankers and pay for it have also to pay a hefty amount annually to the local authorities.
A recent report details this injustice. The arrangement under which the Rangers were handed over the control of seven hydrants owned by the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board (KWSB) dates back to 1999 when a severe water shortage caused the drying up of the Hub dam, a major source of water for Karachi. However, when water again became available three years later from the dam, the arrangement was not discontinued. In fact, the use of the hydrants increased considerably over time, and the biggest beneficiary was the Rangers. What is surprising is that this happened with full knowledge of the government. Only one such hydrant was taken back from the Rangers and its recent closure improved water supply to neighbourhoods in its vicinity. The Rangers were deployed to maintain law and order in Karachi, not to get involved in the commercial sale of water. A major priority for the city administration should be to close these hydrants so that the city’s residents can get water through the KWSB network, for which they pay water charges every year.
Jinnah’s commitment to principles
What, then, are the core principles he believed in and stood for? First, he stood for clean, honest and untainted politics. In his day, politics had not become “the last refuge of a scoundrel”, nor the scourge of the masses, nor a metaphor for corruption galore. Unlike latter day politicians, Jinnah considered politics as a means of serving the community and the country, and not as a means of amassing wealth.
This reminds one of an anecdote narrated by Khasa Subba Roo, former editor of the Indian Express. About the turn of the century, when Jinnah had established himself at the bar, he was asked why he had not entered politics as was the wont with successful lawyers at the time. His reply was characteristic of the man who would later be acknowledged as the most incorruptible politician in the country. He said that he was awaiting the day when he had saved enough — and he named a figure, considered enormous at the time — to afford to involve himself in politics with a clean conscience since he did not want to live off, nor make a profession of, politics. And all through his life, he spent his own personal funds to finance his political activities (including travel, boarding and lodging).
It was again characteristic of Jinnah and his sense of self-respect that when the Muslim League was blamed for the failure of the Shimla Conference in 1945, he refused the hospitality of the Government of India, not only for himself but for the entire Muslim League Working Committee (which had met for consultations and stayed at Hotel Cecil, Shimla) and got the entire expenses paid by the members themselves. Again, as Governor-General, he cancelled the orders for a Lincoln limousine and for an aircraft because he felt that Pakistan could not afford to pay for them. (But today, even chief ministers, despite their provinces’ financial insolvency, are purchasing aircraft for their use out of public money, with impunity).
Second, he believed in democratic ideals, in a democratic approach, in a democratic dispensation. He stood for political toleration, for an honest difference of opinion, and for observing the rules of the game. At the Allahabad session (1942), for instance, he allowed the Working Committee and Council members to speak out their minds, even if it be against him. And Maulana Hasrat Mohani exercised that right to the hilt.
Third, Jinnah stood for consensual politics and for participation of the masses. Although the Lahore Resolution was passed on March 23, 1940, he did not make the goal set out in it as the supreme objective of the Muslim League until he found that it represented the will of the Indian Muslims. Again about Muslim India’s yearning and aspirations, even in the height of the struggle for Pakistan, he would say: “We want the verdict of the electorate, such as it is constituted, of Muslims, whether they want Pakistan or whether they want to live here as an abject minority under the Hindu Raj...” A week earlier he had declared, “... if the Muslim verdict is against Pakistan. I will stand down” (Quetta, October 10, 1945).
Fourth, Jinnah believed that the battle for freedom should be fought on the floor of the assembly rather than on streets. He also felt that the government should practise democratic norms, observe rules of the game, and should abstain from taking recourse to draconian measures which may push the opposition to the wall. That is why he resigned from the Imperial Council on the adoption of the Rowlatt Bill (1919).
Fifth, Jinnah believed that the legislature, the judiciary and the press, along with the executive, constitute the four pillars of the state. He believed in the autonomy of the legislature, the judiciary and of the press. He considered the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan to be a completely “sovereign body” (by the same token, the National Assembly in present-day Pakistan should be the supreme legislative body). In 1948 a provincial government wanted Jinnah’s consent for an ordinance a few days before the legislature was due to meet. He refused, saying that it would tantamount to bypassing the legislature.
Sixth, Jinnah believed in the sanctity of the vote, and always exhorted his audience to exercise their right of vote the way they liked, but with caution and on the basis of principles they believed in. During the critical elections of 1945-46, he said, “Your votes in favour of the Muslim League candidates are not for... individuals but... for Pakistan.”
But even in those elections he spurned with disdain offers of opponents to withdraw for a consideration. When, for instance, Abdur Rahman Siddiqui brought in an offer from Hasan Ispahani’s opponent in Calcutta to withdraw on payment (merely) of his deposit money of Rs250, Jinnah said. “Pay money? Indirectly bribe a candidate to withdraw? No, never. Tell him at once that his offer is rejected. Hasan will fight him.”
Likewise, during the crucial Sindh elections in December 1946, when he was approached for sanctioning a further sum of Rs50,000 for the campaign, Jinnah told G. Allana “in a firm tone”: “But remember one thing. I don’t want you to pay a single rupee to any voter as bribe to vote for us... I prefer defeat to winning election by adopting dishonest and corrupt means.” (the present day politicians who swear by him, perhaps, as a routine exercise, would do well to remember the Quaid’s obiter dicta on the purchase of legislators, candidates and voters).
All through his life Jinnah stood for the freedom of the Press. On many an occasion in the Indian central legislature he pleaded the cause of press freedom. Thus, on September 19, 1918, he called upon the government to “protect those journalists who are doing their duty and are serving both the public and the government by criticizing the government freely, independently, honestly — which is an education for any government.” During the Pakistan struggle he had often called for counsel, advice, even criticism: “If I go wrong or, for that matter, the League goes wrong in any direction or in its policy or programme, I want you to criticize it openly as its friends...” This means that he believed in freedom with responsibility.
Jinnah believed in the supremacy of the law and condemned the abridgement of constitutional and civic rights. In raising his voice against such abridgement, he made no difference between friend and foe, between one community and another. For instance, he protested against the interment of Annie Basant (1917), the Ali Brothers (1914), the detention without trial of Sarat Chandra Bose (1935) and Vithablbhai Patel (1931), and the promulgation of Rowlatt Bill (1919). He believed that “no man should lose his liberty or be deprived of his liberty without a judicial trial in accordance with the accepted rules of evidence and procedure”; he stood for extending powers to the judiciary instead of to the administration, and for a separation between these two pillars of the state.
Though he was the founder and head of the state, Jinnah refused to forestall the shape of the Pakistan constitution. He was, however, confident that “it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam.”
As the discussion above clearly indicates, Jinnah’s principles and pronouncements are extremely relevant to today’s Pakistan. In present-day conditions, the mere fact that the masses have, by and large, stood by them over the decades seems to matter little. What does really matter, however, is what those at the apex of the social and political pyramid do. After all, if charity should begin at home, reform must necessarily begin at the top.
The writer is a former director of the Quaid-i-Azam Academy.
Bush’s storm
PRESIDENT BUSH’S response to Hurricane Katrina has been, to put it kindly, faltering. He has fallen short both rhetorically and substantively. The rhetorical failure is less important but perhaps more surprising for a politician with his strong communications skills. One of the highlights of Mr Bush’s presidency, and one of the keys to his reelection, was his ability to rally a country stunned by the Sept. 11 attacks — perhaps most vividly in his visit to the smouldering ruins of the World Trade Centre.
President Bill Clinton rose to an earlier challenge after the Oklahoma City bombing, using the bully pulpit of the presidency to reassure and console the nation.
A natural disaster may pose a tougher test for a president; there is, after all, no enemy or evildoer to rail against. Even so, Mr Bush’s tone and demeanour have been off, sometimes jarringly, since Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast 10 days ago. He chose to remain at his Texas ranch — and head to California to promote his Medicare prescription drug plan — even after the storm hit. His assertions of progress have been disconcertingly at odds with the chaotic scenes being watched by millions of Americans.
Among the sound bites of his presidency that Mr. Bush will most regret, one will surely be “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.”
That was Mr. Bush’s valentine last week to his hapless Fema director, Michael D. Brown. Many Americans are already frustrated — justifiably so — by the administration’s unwillingness to candidly acknowledge the difficulties it is facing in Iraq, and the degree to which its own misjudgments contributed to them.
—The Washington Post