Sanity wanted

MONDAY’s suicide bombing, which killed at least 15 people in Bannu, has coincided with the constitutional battle for Saturday’s presidential election. The masses have not yet taken to the streets in a way typical of Pakistani mobs, but one shudders at the very thought of what the outcome will be if the present trend toward violence snowballs and spins out of control. As always, politics in Pakistan is not a matter of difference of opinion as it is in democratic countries wedded to rule of law and constitutionalism; it has degenerated into personal animosities. This is not a new phenomenon. We saw this in the PNA movement against the PPP government, the hatred that simmered in the hearts of Ziaul Haq’s opponents for his judicial murder of Bhutto, in the tyranny Zia unleashed against the PPP and in the political anarchy that characterised the ‘democratic’ era of 1988-1999. In those years, the principal characters — Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif, Presidents Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Farooq Leghari, army chief Gen Mirza Aslam Beg and the subservient courts — had no other aim save that of wrecking their opponents’ government. It became a vicious cycle of vendetta. It never occurred to any of them that their first and foremost duty was to nurture democracy, develop a modus vivendi between the government and the opposition, and establish a working relationship between the federal government and the provinces. Instead, each time it was the nation that had to pay for the leaders’ follies. The PNA movement led to Ziaul Haq’s martial law and the 1988-1999 mayhem ended with the October 1999 coup. Will the present power struggle end similarly?

The opposition has taken last week’s decision by the Supreme Court in a spirit of defiance and the six-three verdict has opened the prospect of a new round of legal and constitutional battles. The opposition is now going to challenge the Election Commission’s acceptance of President Pervez Musharraf’s nomination papers, and it hopes that the apex court will stay the presidential election. The APDM part of the opposition has threatened to quit the assemblies today, hoping also to move for the dissolution of the NWFP assembly. The ‘loyal opposition’ will seek to pre-empt this move by going to court to challenge the APDM’s dissolution of the PA. The government enjoying a misplaced sense of security has resorted to a no-holds-barred strategy in suppressing those who are challenging the legality of President Musharraf’s election. What if the SC now turns the tables on him? He is said to have many options. Will he retain the two posts, extend the life of the assemblies or impose an emergency?

Unfortunately, none of this will advance the cause of democracy.

The people have developed contempt for both sides. The government’s coercive apparatus is getting harsher, inflation is squeezing the people dry, suicide bombers strike every now and then with impunity, the religious extremists continue to blow up Buddha statues and target girls schools. Against this backdrop, the government and the opposition are locked in a confrontation which is perpetuating the crisis. The need is to focus on a positive outcome that could advance the cause of democracy. President Musharraf, as the incumbent, has greater responsibility in the matter if the country is to be saved.

‘Islamising’ Swat?

IF there were any administrators of girls’ schools in Swat that were refusing to give into militants’ demands of forcing students to don the veil, the bombing of two schools on Saturday night is bound to change their minds. The more the matter is ignored by the government, the higher the stakes are raised. From bombing all things seen as ‘un-Islamic’ to beheadings, most recently — and shockingly — of women, two in the first week of September in Bannu and one on Friday in Bajaur, militants are proving how committed they are in enforcing their version of Islam. Against this backdrop, one sympathises with school administrators who gave into the threats when they were received and asked girls to don the veil. They did so out of fear than religious compulsion. After all someone has to protect the students because the government has all but relinquished its responsibility of providing security to all citizens. These threats have been happening all throughout the year but have never been taken seriously, other than the mandatory provision of security around the school buildings which clearly does not act as a deterrent. Instead, deals have been struck with the very people who issue such threats — like Maulana Fazlullah — in the hope that the attacks will cease. There has been ample proof to show otherwise.

But what will the government do to respond to the increase in attacks in Swat on internet cafes, music and video shops, salons and schools in the past week? Or the threat posed to historic cultural relics such as the rock which has a Buddha carved on it near Mingora and has been bombed at least twice by militants? So far it has set up three checkpoints in ‘sensitive’ places to be manned by police and army personnel, as if this is going to scare the militants into a retreat. The government has given in several times to militants’ demands and received no concessions in return so it will be futile to engage them in another round of talks — unless the discussions focus on the government establishing its writ. This is crucial and should be non-negotiable. Anyone who takes the law into his own hands must be held accountable. No one has the right to deny girls the right to an education.

Sindh’s tourism potential

ONE could not agree more with the Sindh tourism and culture minister when he said the other day that the province had a lot of potential for tourism. The trade is the mainstay of revenue generation for many developing countries with much less potential. As for Sindh, it is not going to be a hundred new parks, say, in Karachi or Sukkur that will bring more tourism to the province, as flouted by the city and provincial government officials crediting themselves with belated provision of recreational venues to the public. Development of a hill station at Gorakh, which could be termed as an accomplishment if and when achieved, has remained a pipedream all these years. Sindh’s little explored and badly neglected treasure trove remains the prehistoric world heritage site of Moenjodaro. Which other country in the region can boast of having such an impressive tourist destination? The National Museum in Karachi is arguably the biggest repository of the Indus valley civilisation relics, but what has the city or the provincial government done to showcase it to the world in any meaningful way?

Sindh is also the land marked with glorious mediaeval-time architectural jewels: the ancient city of Bhambore and the Chowkandi tombs lie at a few miles’ distance from Karachi; so do the necropolis and the unique Shahjehan mosque at Thatta. The Thar desert, the Indus delta, the coastal belt with its marine-related potential in the south, the sufi shrines across the province and the remains of old rulers of Sindh’s palaces in upper Sindh are waiting to be explored, but for the want of vision on the part of the inept departments concerned. The immense potential for tourism remains untapped, and the blame for this must rest with the rulers who milk Sindh dry but will give nothing back to it.

A Test series called politics

THOSE who celebrate India’s victory over Pakistan in the final of the Twenty20 tournament celebrate the least of the team’s achievements.

The game was superb precisely because it was so evenly matched, the teams separated, in the end, by the strength of a single flick of the wrist. The youngsters led by Mahendra Singh Dhoni deserve applause because they defeated much more than the best cricket sides in the world.They defeated, for starters, Shoaib Malik.

The young Pakistani captain ended a glorious tournament on a silly note when he thanked “all Muslims” for their support to Pakistan. Pakistani players seem obliged to appropriate the Almighty into all proceedings, but that is their privilege. They would be wise, however, not to appropriate all Muslims on their side, for the good reason that all Muslims are not in or with Pakistan. Perhaps Mr Malik lost the match because he was wearing a blindfold.

That is the only explanation for his inability to recognise that there were two Muslims in the Indian side. Irfan Pathan, Man of the Match, did everything possible to remind Pakistan that Indian Muslims wanted India to win. It may be news to Pakistan’s players that Irfan’s father was a muezzin in a small mosque in Gujarat, and his mother wears the hijab in public.

The subcontinent apart, does Shoaib Malik believe that a billion Muslims, Indonesians, Malays, Arabs and Turks, were sitting closely glued to their television sets, cheering Pakistan? It would be a miracle if 99 per cent had heard of cricket, a game as foreign to them as the English language.

Perhaps the difference between victory and defeat is the gap between a closed and open mind. Dhoni’s boys did their country great service in a second subliminal region: they defeated the egotism that has bogged Indian cricket for so long. The egos of the Big Three, Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and Rahul Dravid have become bigger than the team.

Three ex-captains in a single eleven must be some sort of a world record. The team was divided into three individuals in different moods, ranging from sulk to self-interest to petulance, and eight other players trying to fit into the minimal space these three left for others.

Trust me, if the Big Three had any idea that the 20-20 victory would be as big as it became, they would have been in the team: fitness is not a problem in this form of the game, because 20-20 is only half as demanding as the full one-dayer.

On the other hand, if the Big Three had been there, the youngsters might not have won. Alone, they had a different body language, a palpable common commitment and unity of spirit. This was a victory for new India, which has now marched a step ahead of modern India. It was a triumph for small-town India, for popular rather than rarefied India, for an inclusive nation, not an exclusive elite. If this is the future, the future is bliss.

It is tempting to see this as the defining culture of contemporary India, the essence of a confident democracy, its populism rid of both elitist genuflection and sectarian tensions. No definition of popular culture can encompass the whole of India; but will there be enough such Indians to control the balance in the next general elections?

The thought did occur to me that one section of India had adopted the basic tenets of 20-20 cricket even before the rest of the country became addicted: television news. Frenzy, drama, nasal diction and a compulsive need for instant decisions have become its hallmarks.

Not all Indian television is there yet, mercifully, but the attitude is pervasive enough to spill over into parts of print. And so, when the Left was playing chess with the government on the nuclear deal, much of the media kept covering it by the rules of 20-20 cricket.

Artificial teams were conjured up to lend excitement to developments. The CPI(M) was split into the pro-Congress Bengal Lions, led by Souradeb Bhattacharya, and the China Contras, led by Rahul Karat. Journalists were chasing their own version of the story, reporting the collapse of the China Contras in the twelfth over, or a compromise when the collapse did not take place.

There is a useful rule to remember when covering the Left, and they will demand coverage for some time yet. It functions democratically; they take the politburo and the central committee seriously.

This means that there is inevitably debate on issues as important as the survival of a coalition that rules the country. But this debate is not conducted in public. Differences are sorted out behind closed doors, and when they cannot be reconciled a vote determines their fate.

The CPI(M) does not conduct its debate through the media, much as it may dishearten the media to discover this. When the party’s general secretary takes a position, he does so after taking a sense of his committee. It is not arbitrary imposition. No comrade is impressed by traditional media games like twisting half of a quote to suit an editorial line.

What is surprising is not the media’s willingness to see what it wants to see, but that so many seasoned politicians fall into the same constricted mire. Almost everyone in the Dr Manmohan Singh government had convinced himself that the Marxists would have an epiphany moment at their party conclaves in Kolkata, and return, sheepishly no doubt, to pay homage at the feet of the prime minister. The venerable Jyoti Basu was meant to bring the Marxists into harmony with the American timetable for the nuclear deal.

Clearly, the first thing that happens when you join government in Delhi is amnesia about anything that might be inconvenient. Jyoti Basu was on the verge of becoming prime minister of India in 1997 instead of Mr Inder Gujral, when he was stopped not by his allies but his own party.

The politburo voted against the idea because it was not ready to permit the party to share power in Delhi. Jyoti Basu did not utter a word of protest, although much later, in an interview to this columnist he did call that decision a ‘historic blunder’. Any party that lives by such rigid discipline cannot be split by media whims.

If the Manmohan Singh government does not halt the process by which the nuclear deal travels to the next stage, through the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Left will withdraw support. This is what the Left has been saying and this is what the Left will do.

Politics is not a 20-20 game, or even a limited overs match; it is a patient Test series, with long stretches of grafting and boredom, and innumerable breaks for lunch and tea. Excitement is limited to crunch time, and such occasions are rare. One is due in the first week of October, when the next, and perhaps final round of talks take place between the government and the Left.

The chief negotiator for the Congress is foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee, but he is not the chief decision-maker. He would have happily bought six months of silence so that the government could get on with the rest of life.

But whatever happens, do remember that the game in Delhi is chess, not 20-20 cricket.

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

See no evil, speak no truth

European Press: International Herald Tribune

AFTER decades of brutal military rule, the Burmese people have taken to the streets to demand democracy, and they are being mowed down. China, India and Russia have the means — but apparently not the will — to stop Myanmar’s vicious junta from murdering more of its citizens. The three countries proclaim themselves world powers, yet they refuse to accept the moral responsibility that must come with that position.

China is Myanmar’s chief trading partner and protector. Many other countries, including the United States, refuse to do business with the regime, but India and Russia are comfortably making money off the generals and helping keep them in power, with arms and energy deals. So far, they all have refused to use that leverage — a shocking demonstration of greed.

On Wednesday, Beijing ruled out calls for international sanctions and stopped the Security Council even from condemning the junta’s use of force against pro-democracy protests. On Friday, President Vladimir Putin of Russia dismissed sanctions as premature and said he “assumed” the violence will stop.

China is an authoritarian state, and Russia is increasingly anti-democratic. Officials in both fear internal dissent and fear setting a precedent that would allow others to criticise their own repressive ways. As in the case of North Korea — another client state — Beijing disingenuously argues its influence with Myanmar only goes so far. And despite that claim, Beijing managed to persuade the junta to allow a visit by a special UN envoy.

The response of India, the democracy on which the United States hopes to build a key security and economic relationship for the 21st century, also has been weak. New Delhi issued a carefully nuanced call for political reform and said nothing about sanctions. — (Sept 30)

International community must take action

European Press: Die Tageszeitung

HISTORY seems to be repeating itself: in 1988, the protests began small before quickly expanding. Back then, the demonstrations ended in a bloodbath with thousands killed and thousands more ending up in prison or in exile. With its violent deployment against monks and civilians on Wednesday, the regime showed once more that it is immune to international calls for restraint....

China needs to play a special role as the Burmese regime’s closest and most influential ally. In addition, the Southeast Asian alliance Asean, which has so far remained mostly silent in the face of the recent events, has to take a position and risk putting the Asean-Burma partnership on ice.

Still, the situation is a difficult one because the military leadership would never admit to giving in to outside pressure. Still, a quick and decisive intervention by the international community is necessary. The world cannot tolerate such military violence against the people of Burma. — (Sept 27)

Selected and translated by Shadaba Islam