Roundtable on Kashmir
IT IS unlikely that the third roundtable on Kashmir which opens in New Delhi today will produce a breakthrough for the India-Pakistan dialogue. It would have been a happy omen if the various parties taking part in the meeting as well as the Kashmiri leaders who have chosen to stay away could have reached a consensus on the broader issues concerning the state’s future. This would have facilitated meaningful negotiations with Pakistan. It is certainly a sign of progress that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is talking to the Kashmiris — the exercise started in February 2006 with the second roundtable held in May 2006. But it is disappointing that not much headway is being made on substantive issues. Some mainstream political parties of the Valley, such as the Hurriyat and the JKLF, as well as the militant Jamaat-i-Islami, are not participating in these conferences. They have their reservations about the Indian government’s approach. Mr Manmohan Singh has chosen to confine himself to issues such as economic development, rehabilitation of victims of violence, trans-LoC matters, good governance and centre-state relations that were taken up by five working groups. The recommendations of four of them will be discussed at the latest roundtable. Significantly, the meeting of the fifth group on centre-state relations ended in a deadlock.
All this has serious implications for the India-Pakistan dialogue on Kashmir. Since no official announcement has been made on the progress in the dialogue — assuming that the two sides have moved forward — one can only guess what is happening behind the scenes. We have been told about President Musharraf’s four-point plan which envisages self-rule for the Kashmiris, demilitarisation of the state, free movement across the LoC and joint management of the territory by India and Pakistan. The plan appears to be acceptable to the APHC led by the Mirwaiz who has been visiting Pakistan to meet the Azad Kashmir leaders and the government in Islamabad while he has kept in touch with New Delhi as well. It is, however, not officially known what the Indian government’s response to President Musharraf’s plan has been. With many of the roundtable participants attacking a deal with Pakistan — mainly because they fear that they will be sidelined in the new dispensation — the Indian prime minister will find himself under pressure not to be conciliatory.
The fact is that one cannot quarrel with the Indian government’s idea of holding roundtables with the Kashmiri leadership. But these moots do not appear to be making much progress for two reasons. First, they have failed to attract many of the leaders who have a large following in the Indian-held state, such as the Mirwaiz, whose demand has been for a wider participation with representation from Islamabad as well. Secondly, the Indian government has so far not addressed any of the key issues that have been upsetting the Kashmiris. Thus, demilitarisation, human rights violation and the political status of Kashmir are of direct relevance in the present context but have not been discussed. Economic development, rehabilitation of the victims of violence and good governance are at best confidence-building measures in the present context. India should seek a consensus on the political issues with the Kashmiris that have a direct bearing on a proposal for resolving the Kashmir dispute. One hopes that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will also come round to recognising the need to reorder his priorities in the interest of a meaningful dialogue with Pakistan.
Why this inaction?
THE Lal Masjid clerics are at it again. Denying reports attributed to the PML chief Chaudhry Shujaat that progress has been made between the government and the clerics to settle the outstanding issues, the latter have reiterated their original demands: that all illegally built mosques in Islamabad must stay; those demolished should be rebuilt and the Sharia enforced all over the country. Reports that the occupation of the children’s library building would end anytime soon were also debunked. Meanwhile, another report in yesterday’s newspapers enlisted the extent of illegal occupation of public land that the two Lal Masjid-allied madressahs have been guilty of. The occupied land by the seminaries now exceeds 17,000 square yards against the original, combined, legal allocation of 1,000 square yards. The two brother clerics running the madressahs have boasted that they have some 7,000 trained men and as many women ready to resist any government attempt to dislodge them, even if that means carrying out suicide attacks. They have also threatened to set out to enforce Sharia laws on their own if the government does not accept their demands. This not only exposes the rigidity of the clerics’ stance but more so their readiness to pressure a government that has proved too unwilling even to touch them, let alone bring the errant to book.
Given the daring challenge posed to its writ in the federal capital, the government’s soft-pedalling on the issue defies explanation. This, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of ulema have decried the stance taken by the Lal Masjid clerics, some even condemning it as being contrary to Islam. It is clearly not the question of razing mosques to the ground that drives the Lal Masjid clerics and their followers but their illegal occupation of public land and properties from which they fear eviction. The matter has come to this pass because of the government’s inaction, combined with the pains it has taken to appease rather than prosecute the illegal occupants. Ceding any more ground to them will be wrong, as doing so will further undermine not only this government’s but also the state’s writ.
A cultural event spoilt
THE treatment meted out by the authorities concerned in Karachi to the prestigious Sakinan-i-Shehr-i-Quaid mushaira this year by denying permission for the annual international poetry recital to be held on the National Stadium grounds deprived the event of the grace associated with it. The new venue not only made it difficult for the organisers to do justice to the occasion, it also discouraged a traditionally much larger audience from being present. The lack of basic public facilities at the new venue, the Urdu University grounds, was responsible for dampening the spirit behind the glorious cultural event that Karachi has been rightly proud of for many years. The commotion caused by the change of the venue to the ill-equipped lawns also resulted in many notable poets staying away. On the other hand, some of those, including poets from India and from other cities of the country, who did turn up went back without reciting their poetry. This was due mainly to the delays caused in the sequence in which poets were invited on the stage. The event dragged on even after the morning prayer call, defying the tradition of concluding a mushaira before that time.
The insensitivity with which the change of venue was made and the organisers’ lack of coming to grips with it must also be blamed for turning the prestigious event into a lacklustre affair. It is not clear if it was the National Stadium management that withheld the permission to hold the mushaira on its more spacious and better equipped premises or the nearby Cantonment Board which recently acquired the adjacent land. The shame of denying the public access to a venue such as the National Stadium must be shared by all concerned. All the more, because the mushaira was an international event and its mishandling will not win any laurels for Karachi.
Only solution is free, fair polls
PAKISTAN is once again in the midst of a grave multiple national crisis. On one side is the standoff between the establishment and the legal fraternity that has created a powerful surge across the nation, creating a new political dynamic –pitching those standing for the rule of law against those who still maintain that the rule of the military as the dominant player and Musharraf as its head should continue.
At the same time, another crisis has erupted in the heart of the capital Islamabad where Islamic zealot students, both male and female, rallying round the fiery radical cleric Maulana Aziz is setting up a parallel administrative and judicial authority challenging the writ of the state. Similarly, fanatic Islamisation, Taliban-style, has virtually ruptured the tribal belt’s old order and is spilling over into settled areas of the NWFP.
The government is struggling hard to reestablish a modicum of its writ there. Sectarian conflict is once again raging in Khurram Agency and creating deep divisions in many parts of the country. No less serious is a low-intensity insurgency being carried on in Baluchistan by nationalist forces seeking greater autonomy and a say in the affairs of the province and the state.
Let there be no illusion about the dangers facing Pakistan from each one of these issues and many others that bedevil it. Taken collectively, they pose a formidable challenge to the state. These are not isolated occurrences but are a part of a broader malaise which afflicts the nation. To these our current and former rulers have for long remained indifferent. For instance, when the government stumbled into the current judicial crisis several ministers dismissed it as a flash in the pan or a media-hyped phenomenon, overlooking the reality that it is a profound development one that has shaken deeply entrenched assumptions of the establishment that the people can continue to be manipulated at will.
In situation that is fast emerging from the clash of new forces demands a wholly new approach by all our leaders, especially President Musharraf, who stands considerably weakened from these events. The foremost requirement is for him to revise his plan of retaining his hold on power by keeping his uniform. By using the office of the COAS and the military as the dominant institution.
President Musharraf has exercised extra-constitutional powers and operated beyond normal democratic norms and limits. He may have meant well and people were prepared to give him a chance for a variety of reasons. But seven and half years of the current military-dominated rule has once again clearly demonstrated that a federal state with 150 million people cannot be run except under a normal democratic system in which judiciary, parliament and other institutions are genuinely not effective. It is only logical that the old order should give in to face the great challenge stemming from the policies pursued over these years.
This does not mean that the army is no longer the strongest, most organised and modern institution in the country. But these attributes of the military now have to be utilised differently if the state has to be preserved and strengthened. Paradoxically, these very unsettling conditions of today also open up new potentials provided all major stakeholders have the prudence and political will to exploit this opportunity and turnover a new leaf.
The fundamental question, however, is whether the military recognizes that its professional and corporate interests are inextricably linked to democracy and a just socio-economic order and that events have now reached a stage where it is in its interest to relinquish political power. What is more crucial, does President Musharraf think that time has come to place the long-term and larger interests of the country above matters of personal ego and prestige?
Similarly, are our political leaders in a position to rise to the challenge of facing the dark forces that are engulfing us and develop a broad consensus among themselves and with the military to rein them in? They must also realise that war-like situations prevail in many parts of the country. If a political government comes to power, it may not be able to function without the full support and backing of the military.
Equally significant, will the army adjust to sticking to its normal constitutional role of defending the country and assisting the government in aid of civil power, or seek formal or informal sharing of political power as in the past.
Indeed, President Musharraf’s perception that political parties are in disarray and are undemocratic in character and the last eleven years of their rule was marked by poor governance and corruption is shared by many. Yet it would be imprudent to make that as a basis for denying the people of Pakistan a normal democratic order. While conceding that the basic failure of past civilian governments was due to major omissions on their part, frequent interference from the military hierarchy was also an impediment and should not be overlooked for reasons of expediency.
Moreover, failure of civil governments was not a consequence of any systemic failure but a result of poor governance, corruption and a lack of democratic culture. The PPP and the PML (N) have done serious introspection and admitted their shortcomings of which the “Charter of Democracy” does make a mention. Moreover, national interest dictates that political parties be strengthened and not incapacitated by marginalising them.
President Musharraf was also hoping that the current political dispensation would throw up a breed of young political leaders, but it has not done so because a manipulated system does not promote meritocracy in any field of activity, more so in politics. Experience of these eight years also shows that drawing legitimacy on the basis of performance does not work as it is not possible to achieve good governance without adequate checks and balances and proper accountability at all levels, especially of those at the helm of affairs.
Besides, without genuine public participation economic projects, however useful, fail to obtain the right response from the masses. Similarly, decision-making and by, implication, national policy-making remains skewed in a political vacuum.
Regrettably, evidence indicates that President Musharraf, driven by his desire to retain center stage surrounded by only a few who could honestly differ with him, may find that he is detached from reality. This is apparent from the way he has intensified his political activity which is reminiscent of an election campaign. Foreseeing that the current events have curtailed his power and lowered his standing, he may find it even more difficult to shed his uniform. What then could be his options? Will he try to align with the PPP as is broadly speculated, or continue to rely on the present political set-up or declare an emergency and revert to full authoritarianism?
None of these is likely to succeed. Why should Benazir Bhutto associate with a weakened President and play a second fiddle to him? Also earn the wrath of many be faced for compromising on principles? PPP support for President Musharraf, even without uniform, may not be that easily forthcoming. Mr. Nawaz Sharif has categorically stated that entering into any “deal” with President Musharraf is out of the question. This is understandable, because for him General Musharraf is his nemesis as General Zia was for Benazir Bhutto, and to have expected her to negotiate with him was unthinkable.
In view of the strained relationship between Qazi Hussain Ahmed and President Musharraf, any support from the MMA on the uniform issue may not be easy. Besides, there is a wide gulf between them on the “war on terror” and tackling religious fundamentalism.
In these circumstances, the likely route that President Musharraf may take is to accept cosmetic changes in the PML (Q) and continue with the status quo. But this arrangement has failed in the past and to expect that it will deliver better in the future and be able to extricate him from the gathering storm would be unrealistic. This partnership was useful in giving the government a semblance of democracy, but has turned into a liability as people watch with anxiety the moral and intellectual slide of the present system.
President Musharraf cannot even buy time by declaring an emergency as the Constitution does not permit postponement of provincial elections, although national elections can be postponed for one year. In any case, delaying elections will further polarise Pakistani politics.
The attitude of the international community, especially the United States, will also be an important factor in the emerging scenario. Bush administration so far remains steadfast in its support for Gen Musharraf, but with Democrats now in a majority in both houses of Congress and the fast changing scenario in Pakistan could compel the United States to adopt a more supportive policy for a return to democracy. Nonetheless, Washington would like the present situation to calm down as societal turbulence is a huge distraction in the “war on terror”.
Clearly, President Musharraf faces a formidable strategic dilemma, which perhaps is the worst since he took over the reins of power. He could think of many options to overcome this political quagmire, but there is only one honourable solution and that is to have a free and fair election, to which he is also publicly committed. After that he could seek reelection for president without his uniform. In this way he will demonstrate good intent and leave a good tradition and legacy behind.
The writer is a retired lt-general.