Umeed

“UMMEED”
A progressive Magazine sponsored by
DIP (Develop in Peace)


Special Report
July 3, 2004


Watching the proceedings of the, APSA (Action Group of physicians of south Asia) sponsored Seminar on “Prospects of Democracy in Pakistan” held in Washington DC on was quite an experience. It was held at the same venue, though not under the auspices of Association of Pakistani Physicians of North America and the attendance was largely though not exclusively by APPNA members. In fact, it over shadowed some APPNA sponsored sessions taking place at the same time.
Interest in Pakistan/Democracy session is quite natural. The country owes its origin largely to the vision of a single person, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Vast majority of Muslims of India owed allegiance to him and gave him unstinting support directly, consistently and over several decades. They supported him in spite of the opposition of some nationalist Muslim leaders of great stature and undoubted integrity and in spite of the opposition of large numbers of leading Muslim “Maulanas”.
Jinnah was secular to the core and in his first, now internationally acclaimed (though many attempts have been made in Pakistan to suppress it, mercifully all unsuccessful) speech to the constituent assembly of Pakistan that religion was a personal affair and had nothing to do with business of the state.
Fates of societies are generally not determined by individuals. But they are no doubt affected by historic, figures too numerous to name.
Jinnah was one of them but he passed away just over a year after establishment of Pakistan before he could have a constitution passed. He was in any case terminally sick for over half the period of his life as the leader of Pakistan.
The process of Democracy was subverted soon after his death. The very maulanas who had opposed Pakistan, had called it Kafiristan and Jinnah a Kafir (Land of Heretics &Heretic) infiltrated into the body politic and together with Landlords got the constituent Assembly to pass the “Basic Principles Resolution” declaring Pakistan virtually a religious state
. Democracy means rule of the people and laws developed by people’s representatives. Religious laws are based on Divine messages without the intellectual input of humans so a “Religious Democracy” is a contradiction in terms, not with standing revisionist endeavors of many to clothe religion in a democratic garb.
Religion is also the most potent force for status quo. There is implicit alliance between religion and feudal establishment each nourishing the other.
Democracy on the other hand gives some sustenance to people, as they constitute the vast majority of any society and though levers of power are in the hands of capitalists’ it, to varying extent, has to be shared with people. All western democracies are living examples.
Western (and dominant) wing of Pakistan. at its inception was and remains overwhelming feudal. The interest of the ruling class-feudals, Army, Beaurocrats and their hangers on the Mullahs – resides in the supremacy of “Divine Laws” which work to preserve their privileges, lands, wealth and power using the state machinery to control shackle and suppress popular opinion, dwelling on sanctity of private property (never mind the origin of the property which in most cases was the largesse of the British to their supporters for betraying their fellow citizens and co religionist) and attempting to console people that they will have rewards for their current destitution in paradise.
East Pakistan, colonized, largely non-feudal fought its way out of the country a bare twenty four years after independence, the national catastrophe precipitated by the blatant suppression of all kinds of freedom by a military regime.
It is with this background in mind that we have to consider the prospects of Democracy in Pakistan. The great interest in the seminar is easily explicable as well. Physicians come from all social strata, deal with all kinds of people, poor rich, illiterate and intellectual, liberal and fundamentalists, young and old. They deal with ill health and misery, which though may harden a few hearts, generally engenders compassion and thought fullness for physicians it is very difficult to remain narrow minded and bigoted, though I have to concede that some do manage it. They enjoy a high standard of living and in the USA a large measure of independence of Power Brokers. Pakistani physicians have a glowing heritage of Political consciousness and before Ayub Khans martial Law medical students were actually in the front ranks of progressive movement. And have remained politically active since. Though mellowed with age and enervated by prosperity the spark exists and they are a force to reckon within electoral politics.
The session was ably conducted by Dr. Zafar Iqbal. It started with ten-minute presentation each by Mr. Aqil Shah a political analyst about to embark on a PhD program at Columbia University, Senator Tariq Azim Khan (for Pakistani Government) Mr. Ehsan Iqbal (for Nawaz Muslim League) and Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan (for peoples party). Mr. Aqil Shah contended that democracy did not survive and thrive in Pakistan due to repeated military interventions. The two party system after demise of Zia ul Haq had side lined Mullahs and in popular parlance MMA (Muttahda Majlis Amal) is called Military Mullah Alliance. Freedom of expression is proclaimed but freedom after expression is far from guaranteed. Military take over ostensibly to eradicate corruption but political maturity, national consciousness and not military rule is the answer. Institutions have to be developed. Pakistan is multi ethnic, military denies provincial autonomy and genuine federal parliamentary system. In his opinion military was the problem and not the solution. Military has a hammer but every problem is not a nail.
Senator Tariq Azeem khan valiantly defended Military take over. In his opinion people in Pakistan were not fit for democracy, they did not understand it, were not capable of informed choice, voted for symbols like a horse or a sword largely at the behest of the local Thanedar who was under the orders of the local Zamindar. He equated elections with a political zoo. According to him Army had always participated in political decision-making in Pakistan, many politicians had asked General Musharaf. to take over. They had explicitly accepted his rule by taking part in elections and started protesting only after Mr. Jamali was nominated Prime minister because prior to the nomination they had been hopeful that some one from their group would be so named.
Mr. Ehsan Iqbal opined that the age of industrial revolution was over and had been replaced by knowledge revolution. There cannot be any sustainable development without people’s participation. South Africa was no less corrupt and no more efficient than Pakistan yet democracy prevailed there. He thought that people in Pakistan had become apathetic, suffered from national depression and thus had withdrawn into their shells and lost self-respect.
Military persistently claim that they take over when everything broke down. People have internalized the propaganda and believed in it. Pakistani politicians were no more corrupt than the average politicians anywhere. He asked why equally illiterate Indians could sustain democracy and Pakistanis couldn’t. Democracy cannot be denied to people because of illiteracy.
He cited Sri Lanka and Bangla Desh where there was more social Turmoil, Civil war etc they still practiced democracy.
Military regimes benefited from geo strategic factors Ayub received US largesse due to Vietnam War, Zia due to Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and Musharraf was the beneficiary of 9/11. Any prosperity and development during these regimes was due to aid rather than any factor inherent in so called military organization/ law order etc. Military on the contrary encourage lawlessness. A truck driver according to him broke traffic light on the rationale that Musharraf violated the constitution, the supreme law of the land.
Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan argued that Ayub Khan’s regime had caused a great paradigm change from the concept of a welfare state to a security state, thus blundering into 1965 war during which Pakistan was battered and eventually leading to 1971 humiliation.
Military developed the philosophical basis for national security- he attributed it to general Sher Ali, who theorized that India was bent upon breaking up Pakistan, and that Afghanistan was promoting Pakhktunistan. Army became defender of faith not just defenders of boundaries.
Military/Mullah alliance was formalized during Yahya’s regime and consummated during Zia’s time. Musharraf, though secular and liberal can’t break the tie.
Zia introduced Hudood ordinance, was initially shaky but on Dec 27/1979 Russia invaded Afghanistan USA started funding and arming the region patronizing people like Hikmat yar and Osama Bin Laden. Military and Mullah lead a symbiotic existence. People have to stand up for civil society threatened by Mullah/Army and have to break the Mullah Military bond.
An animated question answer session followed.
Some one asked why MMA was not represented. Response was constraints of time availability. And they would be invited the next time.
Mr. Ehsan Iqbal was asked why military over threw Nawaz even though he was their product. His response- Both Bhutto and Nawaz started their careers under the army, one was executed and the other exiled. He responded to a further question by stating that democracy can’t survive if your keep on uprooting it. Military was not trained or capable of running a country. Nawaz was not prosecuted because the case was UN sustainable US collaboration has subverted the process of restoration of democracy. In recent election popular vote was against the army. Social stability led to economic gain.
Mr. Aziz Ahsan stated that democracy was a learning process, we should trust the people and not the General, it was as stream, if you stop it, it would stagnate, there have been three bloodless coups because Army enjoyed security paradigm, he enumerated several commercial projects run by the military, thus it was a corporation and not a fighting force any more.. Army works under overall US plan.
Senator Tariq Azeem opined that military took over because politicians failed the people PPP was interested in democracy only to regain power. Opposition politicians approached Musharraf to take over. Opposition leaders never want government to finish its term. Question was if we should have western or china style democracy. China style produced more progress.
The session was highly instructive and highlighted many problems affecting Pakistan. Though the fundamental question as to why Indian army, as much a product of British government as its Pakistani counterpart did not manage even a single coup was not even brought up by the speakers, panellists or the audience.
. The session, however, did represent a break through in deliberations of Pakistan physicians and merits collaboration of its sponsor APSA, on the one hand and APPNA on the other.
The program found ready and enthusiastic acceptance among the rank and file of APPNA membership. And APPNA stalwarts as the redoubtable team of Raana and Waheed Akbar and many other luminaries graced the audience, as did Amy Goodman who may justifiably be described as the leading light of liberal American tradition as well as correspondents from Pakistani. Newspapers – Nation (Iftikhar Ali Choudhury), Dawn (Masood Haider) and Jung (Nayyar Zaidi).
Such endeavors should not be perceived as a threat by APPNA establishment. These sessions would not take anything away from APPNA, rather they would embellish its image as a progressive broad based organization attentive to the aspirations of its constituency and resonating with slogans of national rejuvenation. Any attempt to preempt holding a seminar during Appna meetings would back fire as the session could and most likely would be held at the same time and at another venue in the same town and Appna would lose substantial audience.
S.Ehtisham.M.D.
Editor, Ummeed.

This report is being presented as a maiden effort of the “Ummeed” team. Regular issues on themes of vital interest will follow at 3-4 month interval.
We present, with pride in their accomplishments, integrity, and enthusiasm, short “Bios” of our sponsors and members of our editorial board.

Amit Shah is an Internist, practicing in S.C.Born in Ahmedabad India his actions are driven by real issues on the ground and he is willing to work with anybody who believes in participatory democracy and sustainable effort. He is in the governing body of American Association of Physicians of India

Sachit Balsari, MBBS, research fellow in Howard School of Public Health, Program on Human Rights & Health. Strongly involved with Indo-US interface on secularism, minority protection both in terms of readings & networks, including trust of several Indian Muslim leaders.

Vaijayanti Gupta, Based in metro DC area. Coord of women/gender issues cell within AID; also for India’s development; involved with evaluating/promoting several grassroots projects.

Sanat Mohanty, PhD, Based in MN, is a core member of several progressive initiatives: editor, writer of South Asian newsletter; theater; study circles; grassroots project fund/awareness raising in India; author of a book on sustainable development, empowerment.

Tulika Narayan, PhD: Economist, worked closely with SEWA-Ela Bhatt fame, works on women/Gender issues; involved in evaluating several grassroots projects.

Sherebanu, Houston. From Mumbai, with relatives in Karachi, core team of last year’s joint celebrations. Whether Bhopal campaign, grassroots develop, projects in indo-pak peace or communal harmony.

Amna Buttar HR activist, founder of Asian American Network Against Abuse