A composite dialogue

IF I had anything to do with the formulation of a policy on Pakistan, I would have sent a goodwill mission to Islamabad soon after the elections.

For the first time, after many years, democratic forces have emerged victorious and that is a great achievement in a country which was tightly controlled by the military. It was a limited democracy, but a democracy nonetheless.

New Delhi could have sent at least a team of artists, academicians, writers and the likes to meet their counterparts across the border. Their interaction might have thrown up new ideas and suggested a different approach. One such busload went to Lahore when the then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee visited Pakistan and changed the atmosphere for some time.

‘Composite dialogue’ and ‘confidence-building measures’ are overused phrases that have come in handy for rulers on both sides. But they have not changed the status quo. Governments in New Delhi and Islamabad are scared or too confused to take steps to sort out even a minor dispute like that over the Sir Creek in the backwaters of Gujarat.

Yet, all concede that there is no better time than the present to seek a solution to the problems souring relations between the two countries. Nawaz Sharif, Asif Ali Zardari, Asfandyar Wali Khan and Fazlur Rehman are comparatively the most liberal elements in Pakistan that New Delhi can assemble to do business with. All four want good relations with India and have said so on record. The atmosphere is also congenial with practically no tension between the two countries.

Still, there are some real problems hampering result-oriented talks. India has to go through fresh elections. A new Lok Sabha is due for constitution by May 2009. Naturally, the present government cannot bind the next formation to anything new without a public debate and without the approval of the opposition parties. For example, the Kashmir problem cannot be settled by the present government, however close the interlocutors behind the scenes may be.

On the other hand, the Yusuf Raza Gilani government is still to settle down. The coalition is going through spasms of uncertainty. There is a host of domestic problems which the two key leaders have to tackle. Their plate is too full to take on problems relating to India.

The core issues will have to wait. Nawaz Sharif’s statement that trade and business will have to progress in proportion to the advance made on Kashmir may prove to be a spanner. Suppose Kashmir proves to be intractable, as has been found so far, does it mean that there should be no trade or business? The two have to be separated.

The real problems are economic in nature. They can change the course of history. Kashmir or Kargil are emotional issues and they do not lessen the misery of poverty and deprivation in the two countries. True, Kashmir has to be settled but some more time would not matter when we have been grappling with it for the last six decades. Pakistan’s fear is that the rivers allotted to it under the Indus Water Treaty rise from Kashmir and India may divert them. The treaty has served both countries well. But there can be a mechanism where all six rivers are controlled by both countries. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said some time ago that India was ready to accommodate Pakistan on the river waters.

From whichever point the Gilani government may start, it would have to take the economic route. Disputes or religiosity cannot engage people who want bread. They are not anti-India, but anti-feudal. Economic cooperation with India gives rise to new hopes. People-to-people contact is a means, not an end by itself. The ultimate goal is the uplifting of the common man from the dire conditions he faces.

New Delhi’s response has to be unilateral and positive. India is a developed country as compared to Pakistan. For a level playing field, New Delhi must offer Islamabad concessions in excise and customs. If Indian companies can invest in China, Great Britain and other countries, then why not in Pakistan?

Islamabad should lift restrictions so as to allow joint ventures and even direct investments, keeping the interest of its companies in mind. I see a lot of resistance from vested interests. They have not extended the preferential treatment (MFN status) to India when New Delhi did so to Pakistan a couple of years ago.

Too much time and too much money have been wasted on issues which the government powers cannot solve but that the participation of the people can. This participation means the ousting of mistrust and bias that comes into play whenever there is any serious attempt to sort out things. Communal forces jump into the fray even at the hint of an agreement. India and Pakistan are still prisoners of a history which cannot be rewritten but can be reinterpreted. Both Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari can do so because they are committed to peace and good relations between the two countries.

Their problem may be the military which exaggerates differences to justify its large strength. India does not face this situation because the military is apolitical and under the control of the government. True, the military in Pakistan has withdrawn to some extent but how far is the question staring at the coalition or, for that matter, the country. To test the waters, the government should change the ISI head from a military officer to a civilian.

What is required more than anything else is a break with the past. Let politicians and bureaucrats realise this and let people on both sides feel it. Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari are the best bet. Were they to take a unilateral step to do away with the visa for visitors from India, they would put pressure on New Delhi. Manmohan Singh, hailing from Punjab in Pakistan, is rearing to take action.

But he feels handicapped when Jaish-i-Mohammad, with its headquarters in Pakistan, continues to operate in Kashmir. Militants and the fallout of their activities are irritants which come in the way of cordiality between India and Pakistan. They also arouse indignant opinion in India — something which can sabotage any reconciliatory effort.

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.

The ultimate judges

PAKISTAN’S political soap is at its best when it progresses without bloodshed and bomb blasts. The last few weeks have been absorbing drama around the judges’ restoration. To cut through the hype I asked some questions. Here are my results:

Q: Should the judges deposed by Musharraf be restored?

A: Yes.

Q: Why?

A: The deposed judges have in a large section of the public and in the opinion of the media come to symbolise the independence of the judiciary. If they are not restored this symbolism will suffer.

Q: Would the restoration of the judges actually assure the independence of the judiciary?

A: On its own the step is unlikely to be enough. But perceptions are important. True independence of the judiciary is a much bigger project which every political party should develop as a programme to deliver through parliament. Such a programme primarily needs to focus on the subordinate judiciary.

Q: Why is there the perception that the PPP is not supportive of the restoration of the judiciary?

A: The PPP is not opposed to the restoration but perhaps wants to utilise this opportunity to bring about what it would regard as a more balanced composition of the judiciary. The reason is that the PPP has been the largest political party in the country since the 1970 elections but the establishment (a Pakistani euphemism for greedy generals and their hangers-on) has for the last 30 years conspired to stop it from governing. The judiciary has over these years been packed, predominantly by the establishment, with anti-PPP judges who on an ideological basis have appeared more likely to support the establishment or alternatively the PML-N.

As an example, compare the judicial reaction to the National Reconciliation Ordinance to the return of the Sharif brothers. It is no surprise that the PPP wants to utilise this opportunity to introduce more balance in the composition.

Q: Is the PPP’s attitude then one of playing politics with the judiciary?

A: Yes, but in democracies all over the world political parties do try to have judges favourable to their ideological beliefs and this does not really impact on independence. In the United States, for example, a vacancy falling in a particular presidential tenure is regarded as an opportunity to appoint a person who shares a particular ideological orientation. The problem in Pakistan is that this process has kept the PPP out and actually needs to be rectified.

Q: Is it not that the PPP has a deal with the president?

A: If the PPP has a deal it does not automatically mean skulduggery. It is not pleasant but the truth is that relatively fair general elections were held by General Musharraf not because he had been forced out of office by a public movement but as part of a transition to democracy under a reconciliation deal between the PPP and the establishment. This was a major benefit of the reconciliation deal for the nation. The PPP needs now to bring its reconciliation with the establishment and the restoration of the judges together and this is what politicians do.

Q: Was it not the lawyers’ movement that forced the fair election?

A: Without belittling the movement, which was the best thing that has happened to Pakistan in a long time, the answer is unfortunately ‘no’. The lawyers’ movement was a great movement and contributed to the election result but was not supported by enough people to storm barricades and reinstall a democratic government. The actual reconciliation between the PPP and the establishment together with the international situation made fair elections possible.

Q: So what stops Asif Zardari from now calling an end to the reconciliation with the establishment and going with the PML-N?

A: Not recognising the continuing political strength of the establishment could be fatal to the political process. Despite its so-called unpopularity, the fact of the matter is that even in the current parliament the presidential camp representing the establishment is the second largest political element. As politicians it is Mr Zardari and Mr Sharif’s duty not to break the political consensus that is giving Pakistan hope of confronting the bloody conflict that is in progress in the country.

Q: Can the establishment actually stop the restoration if Mr Zardari does not bring it on board?

A: Examine the scenario where, as a result of a parliamentary resolution, the prime minister orders the restoration of the deposed judges. The decision is then stayed by the current Supreme Court. The executing authorities, perhaps the Islamabad Police and the notorious Triple One Brigade, would then have to accept either the missive of the prime minister or the court. If this reminds you of the confrontation between Nawaz Sharif and President Ghulam Ishaq or more recently between Nawaz Sharif and Musharraf then you are right to feel uncomfortable. This parliament could, if things go this way, be a short-lived parliament. Leaders are not elected to seek such institutional confrontations unless they are sure to be able to force them.

Q: If the compromise acceptable to the establishment and all political forces is restoration but together with the continuation of the PCO judges should it be accepted?

A: Although wrong in principle it would be the lesser evil and in politics sometimes such choices need to be made.

Q: What if such a compromise is opposed by the lawyers’ bodies, where does this leave the process?

A: It should be remembered that the lawyers’ bodies are trade bodies and consultation with them is important but parliament and the political parties should represent the ultimate national interests.

Q: What about the Bhurban Declaration?

A: The Bhurban Declaration did not rule out such a compromise and Asif Zardari specifically indicated this in the joint press conference that followed. The issue was not raised by anybody at the time. As an aside, the deadline in the Bhurban Declaration was bad politics and both Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari will need to learn that making a promise and not delivering is worse than not promising at all.

Q: The NRO is believed to grant cover to a number of financial crimes. Are the PPP and Mr Zardari afraid that the restoration of the judges will result in all cases against them being reopened?

A: This is a red herring. Ms Benazir Bhutto and Mr Zardari have successfully led an anti-establishment party for almost 30 years. During this period, they resisted full-blooded persecution, most recently under Farooq Leghari, Nawaz Sharif and Musharraf. It would be silly to believe that Mr Zardari would now be too concerned by these matters particularly in his own party’s government which can in any case choose to withdraw prosecutions which mostly have questionable evidence as their basis.

The writer is a corporate lawyer and a political analyst.

lawgroup.q3@googlemail.com

Revisiting feudalism

IT is always a good sign when debate is generated in society and among peers. So, it was great to see Haider Nizamani’s April 30 article on these pages with regard to feudalism.

The writer could not find any evidence of the existence of feudalism in Pakistan except in my mind or that of MQM’s Altaf Hussain.

One hopes that Mr Nizamani took the trouble of going through the ANP’s election manifesto which calls for land reforms in the country. The problem might have appeared on the writer’s radar screen had he been living in Pakistan and not in British Columbia.

But the more substantive point is his citation of Indian economist Harbans Mukhia and Pakistani scholar Eqbal Ahmed on the subject. While Mukhia argued that feudalism did not exist in India even during medieval times, Eqbal Ahmed was of the view that feudalism is just the whipping boy of the Pakistani intelligentsia. So, Mr Nizamani’s conclusion was that feudalism does not exist in Pakistan, and in fact that this is a capitalist society where the exploiters were not the landed gentry but the civil and military bureaucracy with close links to Washington and London.

He used the term ‘metropolitan power centres’ which I assume is an indirect reference to the thesis of Hamza Alavi who talked about the class of feudal landowners in Pakistan. But Mr Nizamani’s thesis is that Pakistan no longer suffers from feudalism even if it existed at all in the past.

Whether Indian and Pakistani societies are capitalist or feudal is a never-ending debate. Probably Mr Nizamani did not get a chance to see Indian author R.J. Sharma’s work on the subject. He has argued that feudalism did and continues to exist in certain parts of India. American historians such as Elizabeth A.R. Brown and Susan Reynolds have also debated the issue with reference to medieval times. However, other historians challenge their assumption.

Clearly, as far as Pakistan is concerned the definition of the term has undergone a change. Most scholars are not willing to move beyond the Marxian definition of the word feudalism. Since Marx conceptualised it mainly in economic terms and as a step towards capitalism and then a classless society, most people are not willing to re-conceptualise the term.

According to the Marxian definition, the three elements which characterise feudalism are: lords, vassals and fiefs. Marx defined the concept thus: “the power of the ruling class (the aristocracy) rested on their control of arable land, leading to a class society based upon the exploitation of the peasants who farm these lands, typically under serfdom”.

However, for those not familiar with political economy, feudalism is not just about the economic mode of production, it is also about the power structure. One need not stop at Marx and not consider the evolution of an institution.

The problem in today’s Pakistan is that a number of people find it hard to concede the continuation of feudalism due to their fear of the urban style fascism of the jihadis and the MQM. Compared to the terror that these two institutions inspire, the landlords appear benign. But one would like to draw Mr Nizamani’s attention to the fact that it is not lowly analysts like me but the feudals of this country who go and shake hands with the MQM and its leadership.

Moreover, the civil and military bureaucracy is not the only entity that does the bidding of foreign powers. In fact, politicians, who are part of the ruling elite, are equally comfortable in making deals with Washington and London or at their behest.

Furthermore, the opinion of elite scholars is divided as to the object of their support: the authoritarian military, which dominates the country’s politics and institutions and does not let anyone breath, or the political elite that provides the only credible forum for democracy in the country. The answer might be easier to seek if both categories are considered as one instead of two. Pakistan’s tragedy, as pointed out by Hamza Alavi, is that the military and civil bureaucracy serves the interest of the ruling elite and is a part of it.

But back to the issue of feudalism which Mr Akbar Zaidi and Mr Haider Nizamani cannot find in the country, believing my perception to be driven by visits to my village rather than based on any concrete evidence.

There are two points that I would like to raise. First, feudalism is not just about the means of production but also about how power is distributed and exercised. As I had mentioned in my earlier article, the majority of traditional landowners today have become industrialists. Since Pakistan’s ruling elite was historically the landowners, new classes such as the civil and military bureaucracy also tend to invest in land as a symbol of power. Interestingly, even the new capital such as ‘bazaaris’ or traders tend to acquire land to express their power within the social system.

What is peculiar about a pre-capitalist structure like Pakistan’s is that an asset such as land is held not just as a source of income but because it is a symbol of power.

Surely, the institution has morphed. The vassal no longer serves the landlord’s military and pays taxes in return for land grant, but the ordinary people are beholden to the landlord for opportunities. Today, the landlord has many faces. He is a general, a powerful civilian bureaucrat, politician, etc.

Second, the emphasis on feudalism is not about a personal fixation on ‘isms’ but the fact that there is a difference between feudalism and other kinds of authoritarianism. Surely, as Mr Akbar Zaidi argued in his article, there is authoritarianism all over the world including in the US which boasts of democracy. However, there is a difference between the American and Pakistani societies. In the US, for instance, a woman who gets raped does not face a problem registering her case with the police.

Is it that these wonderful scholars cannot tell the difference between neo-imperialism and feudalism? Are we forgetting the presence of Pir Pagara, Ghulam Mustafa Khar and Sardar Farooq Leghari and many others? Not to forget the time when the Pir of Pagara and then Prime Minister Mohammad Khan Junejo could not sit in the same assembly because the latter was a follower of the former? Mr Nizamani argues that today most landholdings are small. However, the manner in which water and farm-to-market roads, two resources which can make or break a farmer, are manipulated by the bigger landowners says something about the skewed distribution of power.

It would be great if Dr Mubarak Ali or other historians could investigate the issue. But it is time that we started searching for socio-political evidence to see whether or not the institution of feudalism continues to thrive.

The writer is an independent military and security analyst

ayesha.siddiqa@gmail.com

Bosnia’s teen crime

IT started with a murder. Three teenage gang members beat up and stabbed to death 17-year-old high school student Denis Mrnjavac, unknown to them, on a packed Sarajevo tram on Feb 5.

Four days later, more than 10,000 citizens took to the streets in protest against increasing teen crime, demanding immediate action by the government. They held signs that read ”We are all Denis Mrnjavac”.

The events prompted the formation of the Citizens of Sarajevo group, which is holding a large-scale protest on May 9, Victory Day for most of Eastern Europe, in the country’s capital. Soviet forces announced the surrender of Nazi Germany on May 9, 1945.

”We are trying to change the state of consciousness of Sarajevo people,” Plamenko Muratovic, a member of the newly founded organization told IPS. ”Right now, what we’re doing (is what) French people did 200 years ago, the Americans did 230 years ago.”

Founded and based on the Internet, the “informal” group has gathered about 3,000 people at “spontaneous” protests in the last three months. They have demanded the resignation of Sarajevo Canton’s prime minister and the city’s mayor. They also want a transparent and functional government, and increased safety on the streets.

The death of Mrnjavac at the hands of teens was preceded by the murder of a 72-year-old woman by three boys aged 15 or 16. They doused her head with gasoline and lit her on fire. After Mrnjavac’s murder, the Sarajevo Canton government imposed curfew from 11 pm for teenagers. Muratovic dismissed it as a “joke of a law.”

The citizens-run group has called the cantonal and city government incompetent and irresponsible, and also started public campaigns to inform people about alleged public funds mismanagement. “In their fight to preserve the lucrative public offices, politicians elected by the people have obviously lost all sense of shame and reality,” the organisation wrote in the letter. No politicians have resigned as a result of their demands, and they have not responded to the information request.

“I’m 23, at the end of my education and, yeah, there’s no future for young people here because of (the politicians’) little games,” Vatric, who attends the Academy of Fine Arts in Sarajevo, told IPS. The inaction by people like Ganic makes Demir Mahmutcehajic scared.

“The majority of people are saying, ‘No, I don’t want to get involved,’ but they are not happy,” the Sarajevo-based organiser of the DOSTA! (Enough) movement told IPS. “That apathy in one moment can turn into uncontrolled rage.”

In a separate demonstration against juvenile crime Apr. 13, seven people, including four police officers, were injured after the protest turned violent. The crowd threw eggs, stones and bottles at a Sarajevo government building, breaking several windows.

Mahmutcehajic, who advises the Citizens of Sarajevo group, said the politicians do “hear” the protesters but doubts they’ll do anything. He expects a “mass rebellion” in as soon as half a year. Unless, of course, the nation’s leaders make a “drastic U-turn,” Mahmutcehaji asserted. “Having a violent revolution will not change anything in this country. The real changes will come when we as citizens come out on the streets in hundreds of thousands, and protest in a peaceful way.”

“It starts with small battles,” said Citizens of Sarajevo member Semsudin Maljevic, 29. Democracy, he told IPS, is “constant war between the politicians and the people. The more victories of the people you have, the more democracy you have.”

But some political activists in the nation of 4.5 million are sceptical about the Citizens of Sarajevo. Alisa Karovic, a Sarajevo activist who is helping the group with logistics and planning, said the organisation lacks structure and members argue a lot. “They are really suspicious towards each other and there is a lot of miscommunication,” Karovic told IPS. “Right now they don’t have (a goal) for what they want to achieve.”

“But the positive thing is that they’re on the street and that they’re doing their best and talking with common people,” said Karovic. — IPS News