Pakistan’s image problem

ANOTHER year has gone by in our country’s chequered history as an independent state. Pakistan is now 58 years old but still continues to struggle through an identity crisis and an ideological “schizophrenia.” Pakistan’s personality today is marked by total disconnection between the vision that inspired its creation and its actual phenotypical behaviour. In the process, it is going through an acute image problem.

President Musharraf has himself, on many occasions, acknowledged that Pakistan has a serious image problem which can be managed only by moderating our national culture and behaviour. In recent years, we have spared no effort in claiming a “soft image” for Pakistan while asserting, in good faith, its credentials of “peace and moderation.”

But woefully, wherever and whenever there is an act of “violence or terrorism” in any part of the world, howsoever remote it might be, we find Pakistan unwillingly, but undeniably, linked in one way or the other.

No matter how much we now try to wear the face of “enlightened moderation,” a deep-rooted culture of sectarian violence and terrorism-related problems afflicting our country continue to taint Pakistan’s identity flashing it on the global radar screen as the “hotbed” of “religious extremism” and “obscurantism.” This perception complicates things for Pakistan and for Pakistanis living or travelling abroad.

In his Independence Day message this year, the president described the forces of “obscurantism” as the main “roadblock” to Pakistan’s progress and prosperity and called upon the people of Pakistan to come forward and join hands in defeating these “negativist” forces in our society.

Extremism has never been our creed, nor have our people ever condoned violence of any sort. Pakistan came into being as a premier Islamic state with a moderate, liberal and progressive outlook. We had a clear roadmap bequeathed to us by the Quaid to build up Pakistan as a “modern and democratic” state based on democracy, the rule of law, religious freedom and communal harmony. The nation wonders how a country that came into being in the name of Islam that stands for peace, equality, tolerance, fraternity and the brotherhood of man, became the breeding ground for extremism and violence.

Religious militancy and extremism are today a serious problem for our country. The face of intolerance and fanaticism that has been placed on our nation’s shoulders has deeply impacted on the personality and outlook of our nation. It has given us a culture of violence and hatred that our society had perhaps never experienced before in our history. Pakistan has lived with unending trials and tribulations of all sorts but did not expect or deserve to become a “pariah” state in the international community.

The successive governments, elected or non-elected, have been presiding over fateful, and in some cases, painful moments in our country’s history without taking the people into confidence or accepting the responsibility for the tragic fallout of their actions or policies. As a result, Pakistan has gone through traumatic experiences which have left us politically unstable, economically weak, socially fragmented and physically disintegrated.

In recent years, we are facing new challenges emerging from the new global situation. Grave crises and acute problems within our own region have proliferated in a manner that has not only made us the focus of world attention and anxiety but also forced us to make difficult choices in our perennial struggle for security and survival as an independent state.

Terrorism is a faceless enemy but the world has often targeted our madressahs as the “source” of this evil both at the regional and global levels. What is being ignored is that in the subcontinent, we have had madressahs and religious seminaries operating for centuries and playing an indelible role in keeping Islam and Islamic traditions alive in our society. In fact, with the exception of the generation that is now growing up in a totally transformed environment, we all owe our knowledge of Islam and our ability to recite the Holy Quran to these very mosque-based centres of religious learning and education.

Today, however, the very mention of Pakistani madressahs raises global alarm bells, and even a short innocuous visit to one of them is chronicled by intelligence agencies across the world as an event to be kept under close scrutiny. What has gone wrong with this institution that has historically remained the torch-bearer of Islamic teaching?

Our madressahs acquired an altogether new role and a detractive “utility” as “factories” of “holy warriors” during the last phases of the Cold War with international players of power using them as a convenient tool to dismantle what the “free world” called the “evil empire” of the former Soviet Union. Our authorities were only too keen to allow this important pillar of our society to become an “ideological incubator” of jihadi militancy and indoctrination.

Until then, “extremism and obscurantism” had never been a threat to our society, nor are they today the sole cause of our country’s current image problems. Our difficulties have been aggravated by decades of internal struggle for power and privilege, long spells of military rule, inept political leadership, weakened institutions, incessant corruption and general aversion to the rule of law.

Our image problems have been exacerbated by the recent high-profile cases of violence and assault against women and systemic denial of justice to the victims. The gender-based customary norms and mediaeval practices, which in some cases are barbaric and senseless, are not new to our society but in an increasingly interconnected world, they have become a human rights issue of special global concern and magnitude.

In recent months, what brought us into sharper negative and dreary global focus was not the recurrence of these gruesome crimes but the way our government handled the cases after failing to administer justice to the victims. Nobody denies that violence and crime against women are a widespread universal phenomenon. No region, no country or no society is immune to this menace. We should, therefore, not have been apologetic in accepting that our society, like many others in the world, suffers from acute gender-based violence and exploitation.

Our principal concern should be the failure of successive governments in eliminating gender-based discriminatory policies and practices, including the flawed norms in our legal and administrative systems. No government, not even the present one, has shown the courage needed to grapple with the primitive gender norms inherent in our legal system and societal customs.

It is this phenomenon that raises serious concerns in the global civil society which remains focused on human rights violations and governmental failures in all parts of the world, without exception, to promote and facilitate remedial measures.

Our image today would have been far less tarnished, both domestically and externally, if at least the victims of recent cases of “rape and violence” were allowed free access to justice with the alleged perpetrators facing the law irrespective of their status or links. Instead of indulging in diversionary antics, which at times may be inconsistent with our religious and eastern value system, we need to focus more on coherent and concrete legal reforms, even if we have to resort to reversing some of the existing policies and laws.

Let us accept that an ingrained culture of “political opportunism and ineptitude” in our country continues to undermine our institutions and methods of governance. We need a break from the tradition of our pathetic political conduct and discipline. We need to bring about a change in our social conduct and behaviour though quality education and culturally appropriate “enlightenment.” We must spare no effort in promoting a climate of tolerance and moderation. In this endeavour, the government also needs to engage all segments of our society through national reconciliation and reconstruction, rising above political enmities and grievances.

This is a collective challenge to our nation that can be met only by a new resolve on the part of our people to fulfil their political, moral and social obligations. Those at the helm of affairs of the state need to reconsider the governmental priorities and preferences. At every level, we need to reunite not only to rebuild our country from the debris of the earthquake catastrophe but also to give a new direction and a new image to our nation.

Indeed, our leadership, our government and our nation as a whole are on a crucial trial. How we conduct ourselves during this hour of supreme loss and grief will determine our strength and ability to withstand the challenges of our times and perhaps also help us erase some of the scars from our nation’s face. This is an opportunity for us to change the world’s perception of our country, which has many reasons and assets other than terrorism and violence, to be recognized as a responsible member of the international community.

Kashmir has been suffering for 58 years. It has suffered military occupation and military confrontations, not to speak of its militancy-related travails. It has now fallen victim to the worst tragedy of its history in the form of massive loss of life and property caused by last week’s devastating earthquake.

The people of Kashmir need commiseration and help in their hour of grief and suffering. It is time now for both India and Pakistan to close the chapter of their adversarial relationship over the “fate” of Kashmir that, in the ultimate reality as demonstrated by nature, they do not control.

Let the people of Kashmir on both sides of the LoC live together in peace and tranquillity. Both India and Pakistan can also then divert their resources and energies to improving the socio-economic welfare of their own neglected peoples.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.

Beyond repair?

EVEN the most recalcitrant group in Pakistan — be it political, social, economic or administrative — is willing to listen to wise counsel of some kind in some circumstances. But I always wonder why government leaders waste their time by giving advice to policemen.

In the process they also waste the time of these officials who know innumerable ways of spending it more profitably, repeat, profitably. In recent years the superior judiciary too has joined the government leaders in advising policemen on how to behave with citizens and how to fulfil their responsibilities. However the honourable judges too have not been able to pierce the policemen’s armour of indifference, negligence and dereliction of duty.

If you talk to police officers of the superior service, they will tell you that it is the incurable subordinate policeman who brings a bad name to the force, otherwise the higher echelons are, by and large, conscientious and public-spirited. I am sorry to say that is not wholly correct.

Take this story that appeared in Dawn some time ago. The Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, ordered the registration of a case against some ASIs for harassing a woman whose 14-year old son they had arrested in lieu of his father wanted by them in a criminal matter. This is a daily occurrence and may be ignored. But the High Court was also told that the SSP, Islamabad, had gone along with his ASIs by advising the woman (when she went to him for help) to produce her husband if she wanted her son released. So much for the citizenfriendly and lawful attitude of senior police officers.

Even when military governors replace provincial chief ministers (which happens frequently in Pakistan) they follow in their footsteps while addressing passing-out parades of police academies and dishing out all manner of noble advice to members of the force. I can imagine serving officers listening to such speeches with apparently rapt attention but barely hiding the temptation to snigger. Of course they can’t be stopped from laughing up their sleeves. One only hopes that the young men ending their training, and not yet hardened by the pleasurable but soul-destroying realities of police life, act on the advice for some time at least.

The trouble with government leaders is that their formal addresses are too formal. They sound insincere, being replete with much-used platitudes and cliches. They are usually written by the concerned department itself, and sometimes by PROs if they are educated enough. They are dull and dreary and full of time-worn and pompous advices being doled out to the long-suffering public since 1947.

For example, if you were to fish out the then Frontier chief minister’s address to trainees in the Police Training School, Hangu in 1950, and compare it with the one delivered at the latest passing-out parade some time back, you may not find any difference between the two. Both would contain the same old trite stuff. In fact, a clever, old section officer in the NWFP home department, who prepared the recent draft, could easily have copied the old one in toto, without anyone being able to detect, least of all the government leader who presided over the latest function.

A colleague in the Punjab information department where I worked, used three basic drafts for writing new convocation addresses that successive education ministers delivered on numerous occasions over a number of years. He only made minor changes required by the occasion, otherwise the contents were the same, because the education policy of the country has remained the same since independence, and leaders continue to promise to mould it “in accordance with the needs and aspirations of the people.” The advice to the new graduates in these addresses was also the same always.

Yes, if government leaders had used formal occasions to frankly state what they and the people at large think of the police it would have created an impact. If they were to speak the truth there would be a sensation. The press would go mad with excitement, and those who are being addressed would come to know the real facts about themselves. But

I suppose government leaders cannot afford to annoy the police, which, by the way, is the biggest prop to their politics.

The latest fad in the advice to policemen is to adopt modern methods and develop a scientific approach in investigating cases in order to ensure transparency and justice to aggrieved parties. I think this is unnecessary. At the risk of sounding flippant let me say that already all over the country, and especially in Punjab, the police methods of investigation are so transparent that even a child can see through them and guess what an FIR is actually aiming at, i.e. which party can be expected to dole out the most money.

Then why copy the West and employ tedious time-consuming scientific methods when the tried, locally evolved system gives better results? The culprits in most crimes are apprehended with incredible speed and presented before magistrates for being tried and

convicted. It is another matter that most of the suspects turn out to be passers-by at the scene of the occurrence, or friends and relations of the real criminals and have to be set free by the courts for want of credible evidence. Our policeman will say, “So what! Not all accused in the West, arrested after scientific investigation, get convicted. So, in the final analysis it comes to the same thing.”

A telling example of home-made methods was once graphically depicted in a farce on TV. Two archaeologists are looking worriedly at a sculpted head unearthed during excavation. They can’t decide its date of origin. A friendly ‘thanedar’ offers to help and takes away the head to the thana. After a while he comes back and says it dates from 2,540 BC. “My God!” exclaim the archaeologists, “How did you find out the exact year?” The thanedar explains, “Very simple. We strung it upside down and after only four strokes from the oil-dipped shoe it blurted out its date of birth of its own accord.”

Most of the faults in the police institution can be traced to political abuse. When the politicians are out of office they threaten to set police right on coming into power. But, as soon as they become ministers, they use the same police to harass, intimidate and oppress their opponents and forget all about setting the force right. That needs to change.

Will it affect the dialogue?

WHEN the natural elements strike they show no respect for man-made borders. The earthquake which devastated Muzaffarabad and other adjoining areas of Kashmir on October 8 similarly made no distinction in wreaking havoc on the region. If there were casualties and devastation in Azad Kashmir, the Indian-held valley also suffered.

For the time being this calamity swept the news of the India-Pakistan dialogue off the front pages of newspapers and from the television screens. Understandably so. The magnitude of this disaster focused the stunned public’s attention and the government’s efforts on the urgency of the relief and rescue operations.

The reaction of the Pakistan and Indian governments in the context of the Kashmir dispute was interesting and spoke volumes about their approach to this question. In this hour of crisis when the Pakistan government faced its biggest challenge, initially its response was one of shock as the magnitude of the disaster unfolded. Hence diplomatic and strategic niceties seem to have been set aside.

The Kashmiris from both sides of the LoC who had been stranded — the recently launched Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service was disrupted by the earthquake — were allowed to cross the Line of Control to return home. There was also the report — since denied by Pakistan but confirmed by India — of the Indian army personnel having crossed the LoC to help the Pakistani soldiers who had also been affected by this natural calamity.

We shall never know the true position but the general feeling is that in trying times such as these even the staunchest of rivals set aside politics and strategic positions to join hands to work together for the benefit of the common man. Although in this case the area was disputed territory, it did not justify imposing additional hardships on the people by keeping the Indians out of the relief operations.

Many areas in the north that were inaccessible from the Azad Kashmir side could be reached from across the LoC. India offered to airlift rescue and relief missions from its side but Pakistan did not respond to the offer and continued to incur a heavy toll. Was such insensitivity justified in the face of the priority to save human lives?

Better sense prevailed subsequently. Pakistan sought and obtained permission to fly its relief helicopters through the forbidden no-fly zone along the LoC to access the remote areas in Azad Kashmir. India offered aid immediately after the earthquake, though Pakistan was initially hesitant to accept it. Now two consignments of aid have arrived from India and more are expected. The initial hesitation was not understandable when a positive precedent had already been set in 2001, the year when a high-intensity earthquake had devastated Ahmedabad, and Islamabad had sent aid for the victims.

It is strange that in the ensuing chaos and panic that gripped Azad Kashmir, our policy planners still had the concentration of mind for hair splitting arguments and knee jerk responses in the light of diplomatic sensitivities vis-a-vis India and Indian-held Kashmir. At a time when the whole nation had rallied behind the government, any unconventional move by the government would not have evoked the negative reaction it is normally wary about. This was the time for testing the waters on two counts. How far India could be expected to go on Kashmir and how much leeway Pakistan’s own public opinion would allow. Regrettably, this opportunity was wasted. Even the people-to-people diplomacy which has done so much to create confidence among the common man on both sides of the border could not help much because without the government’s permission no Indian relief worker could join relief operations in Azad Kashmir.

This circumspection has certainly raised scepticism about the Kashmir item on the agenda of the India-Pakistan composite dialogue. If neither of the two sides is prepared to budge from its intractable stance, is there any hope for meaningful negotiations? Another complicating factor appears to be the role of the militants — which has provided India the pretext from time to time to stall the dialogue on Kashmir. Some reports said that a few training camps of the banned Lashkar-i-Taiba and Hizb-i-Mujahideen were destroyed by the earthquake. Nothing has so far been heard of any role these groups might have played in the relief operations and India reported clashes with some militants in the valley in the post-earthquake days.

It might be recalled that a day before the earthquake, the foreign office in Islamabad and the external affairs ministry in New Delhi had commented on the observations made by Pakistan’s minister for Kashmir Affairs, Faisal Saleh Hayat, confirming that the two sides were discussing several options to lower tensions in both parts of Kashmir. India categorically denied that it was involved in any discussions with Islamabad on changing the status of Jammu and Kashmir.

With the composite dialogue now set for its third round in January, and so much of to and fro movement between India and Pakistan, and between the two parts of Kashmir, it is unlikely that the leaders are discussing only the weather. After having proclaimed Kashmir to be an integral part of the Indian Union for 50 years, New Delhi now finds it difficult to perform a turnaround and concede that it is considering a change in the future status of Kashmir.

Pakistan has wisely deemed it fit for the first time in over five decades to shift from its position demanding a plebiscite in Kashmir to determine its political status. The UNCIP resolutions that provided the ground for a plebiscite under the United Nations’ aegis have failed to hold the interest of most UN members. They can no longer resolve the dispute on Kashmir. With India strongly entrenched in the Valley and Pakistan having failed to wrench the disputed territory, there is only one option left. It can attempt to change the status quo in Kashmir through political means.

India has also had to shift positions. Previously, it would categorically refuse to discuss the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan declaring it to be an integral part of the Indian Union. But now Kashmir has been explicitly included in the agenda of the composite dialogue. The joint statement issued on October 4 from Islamabad where Foreign Minister Natwar Singh had held talks with Mr Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri clearly said, “Possible options for a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the issue of Jammu and Kashmir should be explored in a sincere, purposeful and forward looking manner.”

New Delhi probably feels it would be premature to stoke a debate on the issue in the country at the moment when the two sides have yet to agree on a mechanism to include the Kashmiri leadership in the dialogue process. Against this backdrop, New Delhi simply wants to adopt a low key approach. But issues are being discussed, it cannot be denied, between the governments in New Delhi and Islamabad at all levels, between the Kashmir leaders and India and Pakistan and among the Kashmiris from both sides of the LoC.

According to Mr Hayat, who spoke to The Asian Age in New Delhi, three key options are under discussion. Firstly, joint control of Kashmir as a single unified territory. Secondly, limited sovereignty, that would give financial, budgetary and local government’s powers to the administration in Kashmir, with defence, currency and foreign affairs in the hands of India and Pakistan. Thirdly, the devolution formula that envisages the expansion of the powers of the local government.

What is more significant is that for the first time the Kashmiris from the Valley, Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) have been actively participating in a dialogue among themselves, and separately with New Delhi and Islamabad. Three intra-Kashmir “heart-to-heart” conferences have been held in Srinagar, Jammu and New Delhi in July and September. These have allowed the various Kashmiri parties which are not a monolithic group to articulate their views and bridge the gaps between themselves.

If they fail to evolve a consensus on a common position they will jeopardize the composite dialogue now that New Delhi and Islamabad realize that no settlement they may negotiate can be effectively implemented without the agreement of the people of Kashmir. Their two major demands have been: first, military disengagement from the state and second, loosening of controls on the intra-Kashmir movement and communication across the LoC to create soft borders. Now with the Mir Waiz, the chief of the APHC, saying that India and Pakistan are playing politics with earthquake relief and have missed a great opportunity to build closer ties in a time of tragedy, one wonders if the two sides are ready to take the leap.