Gujarat Horror: World Won’t Draw the Blinds

There’s no sign that the religious riots in Gujarat will end any time soon. According to the international and Indian media, most of the victims are Muslims and the state government is complicit in (or, in the least, unable to control) the carnage. The riots, that were initially described by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee as a ??a blot on the face of India?? are costing India the pride and prestige it has built internationally in recent years.

In Pakistan, the riots are being cited as new evidence of incompatibility between Hindus and Muslims thereby reviving discussion of the two-nation theory. At a time when nuclear-armed India and Pakistan need reasons to live with each other in peace, the riots in Gujarat are adding fuel to the religious fires that have divided the impoverished nations of South Asia.

Faced with international criticism, the Indian government has taken refuge in the timeworn argument of national sovereignty. India?s external affairs spokesperson recently rejected international comments on the Gujarat situation, describing them as ??interference in our internal affairs?? and criticised an interview given by the Foreign Minister of Finland, one of the smallest members of the European Union, to The Indian Express as ??pandering to domestic lobbies.?? Expressing concern about mobs lynching a religious minority can hardly be described as ?pandering?.

Gujarat?s images of horror beamed through TV serve as recruitment advertisements for militant Islamists, whose appeal is based on such images. Imagine, Osama could easily turn around and say, ? To protect our identity, to remain true believers, we must strike terror? The world cannot ignore the developments in Gujarat for several reasons. In the current day and age, human rights have become a global concern. Orchestrated violence against a religious minority in India is as much the world?s concern as the absence of representative institutions across the border in Pakistan. Instead of hiding behind the argument of non-interference in internal affairs of the country, New Delhi will have to start addressing the substance of the world?s concerns some time soon.

The status of Muslims as victims on any part of the globe creates sympathy, and in some cases anger, among the world?s one billion Muslims. The Islamists claim that only their militancy can help the Muslims survive what they describe as a global crusade against Islam. Unfortunately, the images of Gujarat?s horrors being beamed through television are serving as recruitment advertisements for the militant Islamists, whose appeal to angry young men is based on such images.

Prime Minister Vajpayee has disappointed his international supporters with his recent reported anti-Muslim remarks at the BJP?s executive meeting in Goa. By lashing out at Muslims as the source of violence at a time when they are generally perceived as the majority of the victims in Gujarat, he has revived questioning of his secular credentials. Ironically, his remarks serve as an inverted justification for extremist jihadis. Osama bin Laden could easily turn the argument around and say, ??Wherever there are Muslims, they are drawn into strife. If we are not violent, we lose our identity. To remain true believers we must strike terror and fear, or risk being eliminated by Islam?s many enemies??.

With Hindu mobs on the loose in Gujarat, Vajpayee?s argument that somehow Islam and Muslims alone identify with violence rings hollow. No religion or its followers have a monopoly over violence or extremist thinking. The Hindu mobs in today?s Gujarat have more in common with the Christians of the Spanish inquisition and the medieval crusades than they do with their co-religionist votaries of non-violence or the Muslim Sufis who brought Islam to South Asia. And the current BJP-RSS-VHP way of thinking that blames everything on Muslims or foreigners, has more in common with al Qaeda than Vajpayee apparently cares to admit.

Religious violence in Gujarat is a result of the same flawed thinking that produced militants and sectarian terrorists symbolised by al Qaeda among Muslims. It is founded in a claim to moral superiority that erodes all moral restraints and sanctions violence in the name of one?s own beliefs by dehumanising other religious communities. Vajpayee?s attempt to create the stereotype of a strife-causing Muslim, instead of condemning violence by anyone irrespective of his or her religion, is a reflection of the same mindset.

The international community?s response has been relatively low-key, partly in view of India?s sensitivity to external interference. But the world will not remain quiet for long. In any case, India should focus on resolving the problem of communal violence-described by the media as a targeted campaign against Muslims ? instead of seeking refuge in arguments about this being India?s internal problem. The first step in that direction would probably be to assign responsibility for the Gujarat riots and remove the state government that allowed the blot on India’s face to appear.

Indian Express, April 29, 2002

Musharraf’s Agenda: Me, Myself and I reign

On Pakistan’s western border, the US-led coalition is still engaged in its war against terrorism. US Special Forces, intelligence operatives and FBI agents are scouring the caves and mountains of Afghanistan for members of Al-Qaeda. They have been promised, and are dependent upon, Pakistani support in their effort.

Along the country?s 2,912-km (1,800-mile) eastern frontier, one million Indian and Pakistani soldiers have been facing each other since last December. The two South Asian rivals have fought three wars since their independence in 1947. Both possess nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, sophisticated air force jets and other lethal weaponry.

But instead of staying focused on Pakistan?s security interests in Afghanistan and on managing tensions with India, Pakistan?s ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, has decided to ridicule the country?s politicians and confront the nation?s media. General Musharraf appears to believe that legitimising and strengthening his position is more important than unifying the nation and healing its past divisions.

The constitutionality of the referendum scheduled for April 30 is doubtful and General Musharraf?s campaign so far has failed to ignite much enthusiasm around the country. He would have lost less ground if he had maintained some sense of proportion while embarking on his uncontested campaign trail. But his appearance at his first rally in military uniform, his decision to address orchestrated rallies with military officers on stage, and his recent insistence on the media reporting things the way he sees them has cost him the high moral ground.

General Musharraf is increasingly polarising Pakistani society. Addressing newspaper editors and columnists at the start of his campaign, he reportedly said that he saw this as a moment for Pakistanis to choose between supporting and opposing him. He cited President George Bush?s remark, ??You are either with us or against us??, uttered in the context of the war against terrorism and aimed at other nations. But even President Bush was criticised for creating a ??them and us?? paradigm. In any case, a formula for relations among nations devised by the world?s sole superpower can hardly be applied to relations between the ruler and the ruled of an impoverished nation.

Not every one criticising General Musharraf is necessarily his adversary or enemy. There are many who think that he needs to change course and then, if elected in an open contest, he can continue to lead the country. Some are convinced that politics, by definition, creates disagreements and rivalries that must be handled with tolerance and mutual respect.

The army is a national institution and deserves the support of every Pakistani in defending the country?s frontiers. But politicising this national institution, by trying to influence the outcome of a political exercise through the involvement of what should be a politically neutral institution, can only undermine Pakistan?s capability to defend itself and root out terrorism in the region.

The anger currently being voiced against the media for misreporting on the General?s referendum campaign is also a sign that the Musharraf government is moving in the wrong direction. If the press was right and responsible when it supported General Musharraf in his commitments against terrorism last September, its intentions should not be doubted now merely because it disagrees with the official version. Pakistan would be better off if, instead of blaming the media, General Musharraf tries to rectify the mistakes he accuses the media of wrongly attributing to his regime.

General Musharraf is frustrated by anyone who questions his effort to ??change the system??. But the nation has attempted complete overhauls several times since 1958, to no avail. After each ??change??, things have remained more or less the same. Corruption, inefficiency and disregard for law have varied in degrees but have never disappeared. Perhaps it is time for us to take stock of why, despite the yearning for revolution, Pakistanis cannot change their lives.

If the experience of other nations is any guide, changes in society and forms of government result from an evolutionary process. Evolution requires patience. It also demands acceptance of the past as an integral part of the present. Thus, every western country has built its political system in stages. At every stage, the gains of the past were carried forward to the future and the mistakes were treated as lessons. Even sordid chapters and unhappy events were duly acknowledged.

In Pakistan, however, there is a tendency to deny the past. Every change of government is described as a revolution and every ruler spends a great deal of time and energy denying that anything good ever happened before him. In the United States every President, whatever his faults or accomplishments, is remembered officially. India builds a memorial to every dead Prime Minister. Indira Gandhi?s mistakes during the Emergency did not lead to her being written out of history. Rajiv Gandhi received full honours upon death even though the investigation relating to Bofors continued. Egypt gives due respect to Jamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat despite abandoning the political legacy of one and the economic policies of the other.

For Pakistan?s rulers, the past is just a dirty secret that should be confined to a closet. We do not like talking about Ghulam Muhammad, Iskander Mirza and Yahya Khan. Ayub Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Ziaul Haq receive no official acknowledgement. Both our recent elected leaders have been forced into exile and are being castigated by General Musharraf without even an opportunity to defend their conduct.

The present government would have been able to improve things a lot more if it had avoided the pitfall of creating a black and white paradigm, considering itself and its dreams as white and the rest as black. It could have restored constitutional checks and balances so ruthlessly destroyed by Nawaz Sharif. It could have ruled that political parties must elect their officials, thereby laying the foundations of intra-party democracy. It could have re-established the writ of law, by rebuilding our shattered judiciary. It could have restored the independence of the civil services.

Instead, it has embarked on the course of trying to re-invent military rule as ??real democracy??. As a result, everything seems to have been put on hold while nominal gains are being trumpeted as major advances. Instead of denying and erasing the past, Pakistan would be better served if we accept the past and build our future in light of lessons learnt from it. One of the most significant lessons of Pakistani history is that polarisation only breeds violence and insecurity.

Indian Express, April 18, 2002

Pakistan Should Learn from Past Mistakes

On Pakistan’s western border, the U.S. led-coalition is still engaged in its war against terrorism. U.S. Special Forces, intelligence operatives and FBI agents are scouring the caves and mountains of Afghanistan for members of Al Qaida. They have been promised, and are dependent upon, Pakistani support in their effort.

Along the country’s 2,912-km eastern frontier, one million Indian and Pakistani soldiers have been facing each since last December. The two South Asian rivals have fought three wars since their independence in 1947. Both possess nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, sophisticated air force jets and other lethal weaponry.

But instead of staying focussed on Pakistan’s security interests in Afghanistan and on managing tensions with India, Pakistan’s ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, has decided to ridicule the country’s politicians and confront the nation’s media. Musharraf appears to believe that legitimising and strengthening his position is more important than unifying the nation and healing its past divisions.

The constitutionality of the referendum scheduled for April 30 is doubtful and Musharraf’s campaign so far has failed to ignite much enthusiasm around the country. Pakistan’s well-wishers advised the general against a one-sided referendum at this critical juncture in the country’s history. But Musharraf decided to follow his own instincts.

He would have lost less ground if he had maintained some sense of proportion while embarking on his uncontested campaign trail. But his appearance at his first rally in military uniform, his decision to address orchestrated rallies with military officers on stage, and his recent insistence on the media reporting things the way he sees them has cost him the high moral ground.

Increasingly popular

Musharraf is increasingly polarising Pakistani society. Addressing newspaper editors and columnists at the start of his campaign he reportedly said that he saw this as a moment for Pakistanis to choose between supporting and opposing him.

He cited President George Bush’s remark ” You are either with us or against us”, uttered in the context of the war against terrorism and aimed at other nations. But even President Bush was criticised for creating a ‘them’ and ‘us’ paradigm. In any case, a formula for relations among nations devised by the world’s sole superpower can hardly be applied to relations between the ruler and the ruled of an impoverished nation.

Not every one criticising Musharraf is necessarily his adversary or enemy. There are many who think that he needs to change course and then, if elected in an open contest, he can continue to lead the country. Some are convinced that politics, by definition, creates disagreements and rivalries that must be handled with tolerance and mutual respect.

The army is a national institution and deserves the support of every Pakistani in defending the country’s frontiers. But politicising this national institution, by trying to influence the outcome of a political exercise through the involvement of what should be a politically neutral institution, can only undermine Pakistan’s capability to defend itself and root out terrorism in the region.

The anger currently being voiced against the media for misreporting on the general’s referendum campaign is also a sign that the Musharraf government is moving in the wrong direction. If the press was right and responsible when it supported General Musharraf in his commitments against terrorism last September, its intentions should not be doubted now merely because it disagrees with the official version. The media is only a mirror of events.

Musharraf is frustrated by anyone who questions his effort to ‘change the system’ in the country. But the nation has attempted complete overhauls several times since 1958, to no avail. After each ‘change’ things have remained more or less the same. Corruption, inefficiency and disregard for law has varied in degrees but has never disappeared. Perhaps it is time for us to take stock of why, despite the yearning for revolution, Pakistanis cannot change their lives.

If the experience of other nations is any guide, changes in society and forms of government result from an evolutionary process. Evolution requires patience. It also demands acceptance of the past as an integral part of the present. Thus, every western country has built its political system in stages. At every stage, the gains of the past were carried forward to the future and the mistakes were treated as lessons. There was no denial of history. Even sordid chapters and unhappy events were duly acknowledged.

Deny the past

Almost every nation currently marching along the road of success and prosperity accepts its past and builds its future upon that past. In Pakistan, however, there is a tendency to deny the past. Every change of government is described as a revolution and every ruler spends a great deal of time and energy denying that anything good ever happened before him.

In the U.S. every President, whatever his faults or accomplishments, is remembered officially. France honours all its past leaders though some of them had many failings. India builds a memorial to every dead Prime Minister. Indira Gandhi’s mistakes during the emergency did not lead to her being written out of Indian history. Egypt gives due respect to Jamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat despite abandoning the political legacy of one and the economic policies of the other.

For Pakistan’s rulers, the past is just a dirty secret that should be confined to a closet. We do not like talking about Ghulam Muhammad, Iskander Mirza and Yahya Khan. Ayub Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Ziaul Haq receive no official acknowledgement despite having presided over our destiny for long periods of time.

Our recent rulers have ended up being hauled in courts of law by their rivals. Both our recent elected leaders have been forced into exile and are being castigated by Musharraf without even an opportunity to defend their conduct. Projects initiated by ‘discredited politicians’ are inaugurated without so much as a reference to the fact that previous governments also had anything to do with them.

It is fashionable for each of our rulers, particularly the military ones, to say that Pakistan has been ruined by its ‘leadership crisis’.General Musharraf is echoing that line as he proceeds with his one-sided referendum campaign. In reality, Pakistan has had nothing but a perpetual ‘tolerance crisis’.

We cannot tolerate the alternative point of view nor do we want to recognise even the existence of our opponents. The government continues projects and policies of the past but does not have the moral courage to admit that continuity is an essential feature of governance.

Our culture of governance (if it can be called that) revolves around absolute power. It requires creation of the illusion of change even in areas where change is neither desirable nor possible. The present government would have been able to improve things a lot more, if it had avoided the pitfall of creating a black and white paradigm, considering itself and its dreams as white and the rest as black.

It could have restored constitutional checks and balances so ruthlessly destroyed by Nawaz Sharif. It could have ruled that political parties must elect their officials, thereby laying the foundations of intra-party democracy. It could have re-established the writ of law, by rebuilding our shattered judiciary. It could have restored the independence of the civil services. Instead, it has embarked on the course of trying to re-invent military rule as ‘real democracy’.

Nominal gains

As a result everything seems to have been put on hold while nominal gains are being trumpeted as major advances. Instead of denying and erasing the past, Pakistan would be better served if we accept the past and build our future in the light of lessons learnt from it. One of the most significant lessons of Pakistani history is that polarisation only breeds violence and insecurity.

Gulf News, April 18, 2002

Only A Genuine Poll Can Confer Legitimacy

General Pervez Musharraf’s decision to secure a five-year term as Pakistan’s President through a referendum has generated controversy, both at home and abroad. The proposed referendum was never a part of Musharraf’s roadmap to democracy, announced on Indepen-dence Day (August 14) last year.

Critics of military rule in Pakistan are citing the referendum surprise as evidence of their belief that, in the final analysis, Musharraf is not going to prove very different from his military predecessors. The political opposition in Pakistan has decided to boycott the referendum, instead of calling for a ‘No’ vote. Once the referendum is over, the political parties can be expected to launch a protest campaign that could create political uncertainty.

Since September 11, Musharraf has depended less on mobilising Pakistani opinion than on sympathy from the international community. Between last September and the eve of his announcement of the referendum, Musharraf avoided public appearances around the country and was more accessible to western journalists than to local media. But the general’s international allies are far from enthusiastic about the referendum proposal.

The United States remains committed to supporting Musharraf in return for his support in the war in Afghanistan. It is, however, reluctant to appear to support authoritarianism or deviations from constitutional governance.

State Department formula

The State Department has come up with the formula that the constitutionality, or otherwise, of the referendum should be judged by Pakistan’s courts.

The Commonwealth, on the other hand, has publicly expressed its reservations over the referendum exercise. Once the referendum is exposed as the one-sided exercise that it is meant to be, Musharraf will face more questions internationally about the legitimacy of his regime than he has bargained for.

The western nations have a stake in Pakistan’s stability in view of its position as a critical ally in the war against terrorism. In the past western support for democracy in Pakistan was dismissed as “outside interference in domestic affairs”.

But having accepted hundreds of million dollars in external assistance or debt rescheduling, this position would be difficult for Musharraf to adopt. In his address to the nation on April 5, Musharraf passionately argued that democracy in Pakistan need not be modelled on western experience. But most Pakistanis know the difference between military rule and democracy and their support for the latter has been consistent over the last four decades.

Musharraf’s unique definition of democracy -“The people can vote as long as I remain in charge”- will only increase polarisation within Pakistani society without resolving his quest for personal legitimacy.

It will pitch the country’s democratic politicians against Musharraf, distracting both from the task of dealing firmly with Islamists. One of the consequences of September 11, for Pakistan, was to cast dealing with militants as the country’s first priority.

In opting for a referendum, instead of seeking election in an open contest, Musharraf has invited comparisons with Pakistan’s last military ruler, General Zia ul-Haq. Ironically, Zia put Pakistan on the road of fundamentalism while General Musharraf wants to bring it back to the path of moderation.

The ideological difference between the two will be obscured by the decision to pursue a similar political strategy.

The referendum is likely to be nothing more than a symbolic exercise in legitimising military rule. Boycotted by major national political parties, it will certainly not lay the foundations of a self-sustaining Pakistani democracy. Zia’s referendum in 1984 was also marred by a low turnout and a boycott by mainstream national political parties.

From all indications, history will soon repeat itself. People vote to change the status quo or to elect people who will represent their interests. In a referendum endorsing a military ruler there is no such incentive. Regardless of whether people vote in the referendum, the general already occupies the presidency.

Musharraf’s promise of fundamental reforms has so far been the only source of legitimacy for his government. The general has promised that the focus of these reforms would be to establish a functioning democracy besides providing the framework for a market-based economy.

The decision to take the same route as former military rulers undermines the reformist character of General Musharraf’s regime. He will unfortunately be seen as part of the Ayub-Yahya-Zia tradition of military rulers after the referendum, instead of coming from another mould.

Idea of referendum

The idea of a referendum with no candidates is integral to the notion of “guided” or “controlled democracy” too often practiced in Pakistan since 1958. But Pakistan’s society and the global environment have undergone major changes since Ayub Khan’s 1958 military takeover.

Then, Pakistan had not seen a general election despite 11 years of independence. Politics was the arena of a limited number of players, most of whom operated out of drawing rooms in the big cities. The media’s size and impact were also limited.

By the time General Zia ul-Haq imposed martial law in 1977, political populism had taken root. Zia dealt with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s popularity by seeking the support of anti-Bhutto politicians. He also did not have to contend with a vibrant media – something that the present regime must accept and deal with.

The last 15 years have seen a large number of Pakistanis participating in the political process. The mystique of power, including that of the intelligence agencies, has ended. Civilians belonging to many political and religious groups have shared power through numerous coalitions in the past decade, increasing their exposure to state power.

Four general elections have increased the people’s awareness of their relevance to the process of governing. Above all, a free and vibrant media refuses to allow the government to function secretly and arbitrarily on the basis of self-defined criteria.

To try and rule Pakistan through recipes of 1958 or 1977 simply will not work. For the last four decades the country has alternated between military rule and imperfect democracy. The time has come to break that cycle.

Pakistan’s previous civilian political leaders have often lacked vision. The military leaders, on the other hand, seem to believe in a divine right to rule the country. They do not want to share power with the “uneducated masses” and their chosen leaders.

 

The military’s desire to control the political process and to prop up artificial leaders, instead of dealing with those genuinely elected by the people, has undermined the capacity of political institutions to evolve.

Every few years, military leaders rewrite the constitution – ostensibly to rescue democracy from the excesses of its incompetent practitioners. In the process, the military has spawned civilian ‘leaders’? who, like Nawaz Sharif, have only compounded the country’s problems rather than solve them.

A faction of the Pakistan Muslim League and some smaller political parties have allied themselves with Musharraf, hoping to now be chosen as the military’s new civilian partners.

The general expects to secure his power in the stage-managed referendum and then will try to guide the nation’s destiny with the help of a new set of pre-selected Nawaz Sharifs. These efforts to rewrite the rules and impose a new leadership are unlikely to result in anything better than what it yielded in the past.

Ready to confront

The mainstream political and religious parties seem ready to confront Musharraf’s plans for controlled democracy. Pakistan’s civilians now want their fair share of power and are unwilling to follow the game plans of previous military rulers.

Instead of accepting a stage-managed referendum, the U.S. and other western nations with leverage with Musharraf should ask him to abide by the Supreme Court ruling to hold free and fair general elections by October.

The poll should be open to all Pakistani political parties and leaders. If he wants to continue as President, Musharraf should compete as an equal against his domestic rivals in a contest subject to the country’s constitution.

Only a genuine election will confer legitimacy on Musharraf, enabling him to regain his mantle of a reformer rather than a run-of-the mill Pakistani military ruler.

Gulf News, April 11, 2002