Elections in 2007

IS 2007 election year or not? The prime minister has just said it is. But other ruling party bigwigs, including Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, continue to suggest that elections can be put off by a year, “constitutionally” they add, as if to show how utterly committed they are to constitutionalism and democracy. Why is doubt being created about the elections, which are absolutely crucial for our survival as a democratic nation and which bid fair to finally take us out of the morass of military and quasi-military rule? It is obvious that the fate of many ruling party stalwarts will be at stake in the polls and most of them owe their present positions to the patronage of the army and the last elections. They, therefore, have a vested interest in prolonging the existing set-up for as long as is possible. But any delay will be suicidal and will lead to complete lack of public trust in the government and deepen the alienation of the people.

If any case can be made out, it is for elections to be held earlier than scheduled so that we can move on to more representative and (perhaps) caring governance and make a fresh start to tackle crises such as in Balochistan and the tribal belt. It is interesting to note that the approach of elections is already making many nervous. The PML is allegedly seeking to lure away people even from its allied parties; the latter are protesting against the moves. More development funds are being sought by pro-government legislators for a splurge of activity in their constituencies. The prime minister is finally talking of the need for recent economic gains to reach the people. The president is said to be planning to address groups of loyal legislators and party conventions in what will be a totally unconstitutional role. There have also been suggestions that General Pervez Musharraf, who was deemed elected president for five years in 2004 by virtue of a vote of confidence (boycotted by the opposition and from which the MMA conveniently abstained by arrangement) and a constitutional amendment, should seek re-election from the existing assemblies by extending their term. The question of the general’s uniform remains vague and in doubt. All this is adding to the uncertainties besetting us. It is time the president called a halt to ministers and PML leaders creating doubts about the elections and categorically declared that elections would be held next year.

Once this is done, steps should be taken to make the Election Commission effectively independent, autonomous and accountable to parliament. It will be a tragedy if the next elections too are tarnished by pre-poll rigging and ballot stealing. It ought to be announced that all political parties and leaders will be allowed to take part. In trying to keep some exiled or self-exiled politicians out of the electoral exercise, the regime is allowing itself to be misled by those of its associates who may be left politically rudderless if the PML-N and PPP chiefs return. Gen Musharraf may have a good chance of continuing as a consensus civilian president provided he stops listening to some of those around him who have always supported dictatorships and authoritarian rule. He will also, obviously, have to overcome his own inclination to experiment with what he calls the “essence of democracy”.

Decisions on free trade

THE commerce ministers of Saarc who met in Dhaka recently have taken the first major step towards operationalising the free trade area in South Asia that was created in January. Focusing on the trade in goods, the ministerial council has worked out a scheme for the gradual elimination of tariff barriers to be completed in the next 10 years. This process has been staggered and a distinction made between the developing and the least developed countries. Thus, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka will not have any import duties on goods from other Safta countries by 2008 while the deadline for the others will be 2016. The Dhaka decisions will be welcomed mainly because until now Saarc members had not shown enough commitment to establishing a free trade area in the region. Thus the South Asia Preferential Trade Arrangement that was launched in 1993 failed to give a boost to regional trade which today is a mere 4.4 per cent of the total trade of member countries. Its significance can be seen from the fact that regional trade is 55 per cent in the European Union, 61 per cent in North America and 25 per cent in Asean.

One hopes that Safta’s trade will be enhanced as the tariffs are reduced. The inclusion of the services sector in Safta’s regime should help in this process when steps are taken to facilitate trade in services. Two factors are likely to create some reservations about the pace and extent of integration that will actually take place. First, it has been agreed that a number of products that members consider sensitive will be excluded from the scope of the free trade deal. If a long list of items is excluded on this score, the scope of free trade will be considerably reduced. Secondly, as pointed out by Bangladesh, if the non-tariff barriers are not addressed, the entry of many goods from one South Asian country into the market of another will still be blocked, the elimination of tariffs notwithstanding. These issues must be taken up soon. If Saarc is to emerge as an effective regional grouping, it is important that it has a strong economic underpinning. In such arrangements free trade generally constitutes the most essential binding force.

Protecting minority rights

AT a minority rights conference held in Islamabad, various religious leaders once again made an impassioned appeal for the repeal of discriminatory laws like the one relating to blasphemy as these are often used to persecute minorities. Since the blasphemy law came into existence under General Ziaul Haq’s rule, it has largely been abused; often it has been used to settle scores. Thousands of innocent people (including Muslims) have suffered as a result of this law, whose complete repeal has been called for many times. However, those calls have been ignored by governments fearing a strong reaction from religious bigots. Not only do minorities justifiably feel that they have no legal protection, they are also victims of violence as was seen last year when a mob attacked churches and schools belonging to the Christian community in Sangla Hill, Punjab. Incidents like these reflect the rising bigotry and intolerance extremist religious groups are spreading against minorities. While it is unfortunate that there has been no enlightened movement to counter the militant resurgence, the minorities’ conference did speak about the importance of creating interfaith harmony, through a proper dialogue with all members of religious communities. This much-needed dialogue — similar to those taking place in the West — bridge gaps between believers of different faiths.

While interfaith discussions should be an integral part of bringing about a change, they amount to nothing unless backed by reforms in the existing legal system that discriminates against minorities. The decision to abolish the separate electorate system in the last general elections was a positive step that put an end to the marginalisation of minorities. The government needs to make more moves that bring minorities into the mainstream but to do so, it will first have to create an environment where minorities are assured that their rights and interests are fully protected.

Harmony in religious beliefs

The Rashtriya Swayamsavak Sangh (RSS) chief, Mr K.S. Sudarshan, has made the very interesting suggestion that Muslims should accept Lord Krishna “as one of the prophets” sent by Allah. If this is all it takes to unravel the complexities and ease the tensions of the Hindu-Muslim relationship in India, then consider the problem solved.

This is the easy part, particularly since the RSS chief, very wisely, did not ask Muslims to accept the divinity of Lord Krishna. Muslims believe that Allah is the Creator of the entire universe, and it is axiomatic that He sent His messengers to all the people since Creation, and not only to Muslims.

The 47th verse of the Surah Yunus in the Quran says: “To every people (was sent) a messenger: when their messenger comes (before them), the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged.” Since transliteration into English is never completely adequate, Abdullah Yusuf Ali explains this verse: “Every people or generation or nation had its message or messenger: Allah revealed Himself to it in some way or another. If that messenger was ignored or rejected, or his message was twisted or misused, the Day of Reckoning will come, when perfect justice will be done and the whole truth revealed.”

The 36th verse of the Surah Al Nahl (The Bees) says: “For we assuredly sent amongst every people a messenger (with the command), ‘Serve Allah and eschew evil’.” Yusuf Ali adds a footnote: “Even though Allah’s Signs are everywhere in nature and in men’s own conscience, yet in addition Allah has sent human messengers to every people to call their attention to the good and turn them from evil.”

The 78th verse of Surah 40, known as both Ghafir (Forgiver) and Al Mumin (The Believer), says: “We did aforetime send messengers before thee: of them there are some whose story We have related to thee, and some whose story We have not related to thee.” Yusuf Ali elaborates: “Allah sent messengers of His Truth to every people. There are some whose names are known to us through the Holy Quran, but there are a large number whose names are not made known to us through that medium. We must recognise the truth wherever we find it.”

The fourth verse of Surah 14, Ibrahim, says: “We sent not a messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them.” Yusuf Ali explains: “If the object of a message is to make things clear, it must be delivered in the language current among the people to whom the messenger is sent. Through them it can reach all mankind.” There is repeated affirmation in the Holy Book that Allah sent prophets before the last of His messengers, Mohammad (PBUH), across generations and nations, and to “every people”. India has always been a great cradle, nursery, school and university of human civilisation, and it is therefore inevitable that messengers must have come to this land and its people as well.

Some Islamic scholars believe that there is a direct reference to Gautam Buddha in the Quran. Verse 85 of Surah 21 speaks of “Ismael and Idris and Dhu al-Kifl; all were the patient ones”. Verse 48 of Surah 38 lauds the last-named further: “And make mention of Ismail and Al Yasaa and Dhu al-Kifl, for they were among the best”. Dr Zohurul Hoque, who has translated the Quran, believes that Dhu al-Kifl is the Dweller (Dhu) of Kapil, or Kapil Vastu and refers to the Buddha, who was of course born in Kapilavastu. There are other interpretations, but at least Buddha is included among the options.

The verse from Surah 14, on the languages spoken by prophets, is particularly relevant since it clarifies that prophets did not speak only Arabic or Aramaic; they spoke the language of the people they were sent to. They were enjoined to take the message to all mankind, and mankind, untied in ancestry, is divided by language. This verse extends the ambit and specifies it as well. There is no reason why a prophet could not have spoken Sanskrit.

Take another look at this verse: “We did aforetime send messengers before thee: of them there are some whose story We have related to thee, and some whose story We have not related to thee.” In other words, while the narrative of some prophets (Moses or David or Solomon) is told in detail in the Quran, the story of other prophets has not been told. In other words, there are prophets of Allah who have not been included in the narrative of the Quran. It is entirely plausible that a prophet sent to India has not been mentioned in the Holy Book, but that does not diminish either his role or his prophecy.

Krishna lived at least two millennium earlier than the Prophet Mohammad. This is important, because if he had come after the prophet of Islam, then Muslims would never have found Mr Sudarshan’s idea acceptable. In Surah 33, Al Azhab, verse 40, Mohammad is described as “the messenger of Allah, and the seal of the prophets”. The metaphor of a seal is self-evident. The seal marks the completion of a document; there can be no further additions. Islam is also very clear that no man can be considered divine, and this is one of its principal arguments against the Church, which made Jesus a part of the Trinity. Allah is Indivisible, and His creation must be ipso facto inferior to the Almighty. However, Mr Sudarshan has not demanded that Muslims consider Lord Krishna a god. So once again, there is no argument. But I wonder if such happy agreement, always very welcome, is sufficient. Muslims revere Jesus as one of the greatest prophets of Islam; the Quran (Surah 6:47) reaffirms the immaculate conception of Mary, and says Allah created him as He did Adam. But this has not prevented hostility between Muslims and Christians.

While religious identity is an important and often vital component of mass mobilisation, faith and its nuances have rarely been a source of continued conflict between men. Occasional war, yes; but continuous war is fought over material possessions, like land and natural resources and tax revenues.

One of the more remarkable facts of India is that while Hindus and Muslims may have been derogatory about one another, they have never insulted each other’s faith in a thousand years of literature. They have vilified or glorified kings and heroes, but there has been no slander against the deeply revered symbols of faith. Secularism does not mean that we abandon religion. Secularism is the right of every faith to co-exist as an equal, on its own terms. Secularism is the ability to leave space for the other.

The true problem is not what happens in the after-life, but what happens in this life. There are two key words. One is security: Muslims have every right, as equal citizens of a proud nation, to physical and economic security. An Indian economic boom must be equally their economic boom. The second is violence. No Indian, irrespective of creed or caste, whether Muslim or Hindu, has a right to seek answers through communal violence. No Indian politician, Hindu or Muslim, must be allowed to wash his hands in the blood of innocent victims to lubricate his passage upwards on the career ladder.

These are the problems that need the attention of not just Mr Sudarshan but every leader who claims to have the concern of the country in his mind. The merits of Mr Sudarshan’s idea are psychological, but that does not make them a negative. He is at least attempting to place one stone of a difficult bridge over an unhappy divide.

To judge where this thought might come, look at where it has come from.

The writer is editor-in-chief of Asian Age, New Delhi.

Hu and cry

NO great expectations were attached to President Hu Jintao’s visit to Washington and indeed nothing of great consequence emerged from his meetings with George Bush.

It is in the nature of such setpiece events that the biggest news is the symbolism that they are taking place at all. So it was an electrifying departure when an accredited Chinese journalist managed to shatter the carefully choreographed tableau on the White House lawn with a shrieked protest about the persecution of the Falun Gong sect and other routine human rights abuses in the People’s Republic.

The brief outburst exposed embarrassing shortcomings in secret service vetting procedures. But it was also a usefully frank reminder — beyond Mr Bush’s ritual call for freedom of assembly, speech and worship — of important issues that must not be overlooked as the US and the world in general adjust to the reality of “peacefully rising” China, with its double-digit growth, ravenous hunger for oil and other resources, and mesmerising market potential.

Little progress was made on the sensitive issues of China’s $200 billion trade surplus with the US, the undervalued yuan, or of course on ever-neuralgic Taiwan. There was no sign that Mr Hu is likely to back Mr Bush over Iran. Both presidents demonstrated to their domestic constituencies that they have aired contentious issues, though without resolving them.

Mr Hu did far better in meetings in Seattle with executives from Microsoft and Boeing, promising to curb software piracy and boost domestic demand. There is clearly a danger that the economics and politics of the complex US-China relationship may get out of step.—The Guardian, London